Author Topic: Wmo  (Read 126533 times)

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #165 on: February 04, 2011, 03:21:55 AM »
DD

maybe we should start another topic, and close this one down
it has become so polarized and polluted that in my opinion maybe it should
be scrapped and we start all over again.

btw, i am very interested in continuing the discussion

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #166 on: February 04, 2011, 03:41:15 AM »
That OK by me. It might make reading through post easier. Its up to you.
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #167 on: February 04, 2011, 03:49:13 AM »
We will probably never have facts but we can sure come up with some strong educated opinions.. DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

BigGreen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Mach1Pony
Re: Wmo
« Reply #168 on: February 04, 2011, 04:53:16 AM »
I requested rbodell to come here to share his experience and method with us and he was greeted by being accused of being a snake oil salesman?  ???  ??? My deepest apology Mr. Bodell, I now regret my action. I still think you has the answer.

 Dave
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 05:10:10 AM by BigGreen »
Dave
More Power Ashwamegh 25/2 15kw

billswan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #169 on: February 04, 2011, 05:37:11 AM »
Well guys this is the first time today I have had a chance to read this forum and this thread. WOW I just cannot believe the banned one.

Yes I sure would like to continue this thread but if admin would want to just purge or lock up this whole mess and just start over that would be fine by me.

My goodness................. :o

Billswan

 
16/1 Metro  in the harness choking on WMO ash!!

10/1 OMEGA failed that nasty WMO ash ate it

By the way what is your cylinder index?

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #170 on: February 04, 2011, 05:54:37 AM »
First of all I don't think anything was going to be purged, at least that was not my intentions. I felt that the first post could still be for research and go forward with a totally positive attitude that we would over come something. I just reread the part Bob wrote and I think his use of the word SCRAP might be out of context. As for Mr Rohdel I believe I did welcome his ideas and I did call Spencer on the carpet for making that remark. This topic will never have cold hard facts as long as the experiment is scattered out around the world. We can however come up with some strong educated opinions that will help the rest of us who depend on others experience. If starting a second post please continue to keep the old one alive. Somehow we need to come up with some answers. Please accept my apologizes. Mike
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

Bottleveg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #171 on: February 04, 2011, 12:17:51 PM »
Iíll put this up again now the shouting has stopped.
Iíve run a pressure jet burner for the last three years on wmo. It needs 100 micron filtered oil so to start I just tipped the wmo through a 100mic filter sock, drained any water, and fed it to the burner. All worked well but the firebox needed the ash removing every three weeks.
Now Iím very curious about things so, after a few months, I drained the wmo fuel tank, fitted a 50-micron filter and off it went again. Ash content was reduced.
I then tested a 20-micron filter and again had a reduction of ash in the firebox.
The burner I use heats the wmo to an adjustable temperature so it will ignite with spark ignition. If I use oil from the top of a settled oil tank it needs a lower ignition temperature than that drawn from the bottom. I believe this is because the non-oil particles settle out and the oil ignites easier if itís cleaner.
What I learned from this is that the ash is a result of the non-oil contamination. Iím not sure what percentage, it could well be that the additives create some ash, I donít know.
The wmo I use on my 8/1 is half micron filtered. Iíve had no problem, other than poor starting at minus 6c, but I donít have enough hours on the engine to give any meaningful results.
I notice Mr Rbodell uses 2 micron and I find his results both positive and encouraging.
I did try Ď1 micron filteredí oil on an IDI Isuzu engine but it suffered injector coking and unfortunately my experiment was flawed, I used a second hand filter sock from an unknown manufacturer so my 1 micron could have 7! However, it is my belief that the coking was due to non-oil contamination and not burnt additives.
Itís worth noting here that filter efficiency varies. I canít remember the percentages now but a cartridge filter generally gives better performance than a sock filter. It depends on the manufacturer and filters are made to varying specifications. Some 1-micron sock filters of Chinese origin have been found to only give 12-micron efficiency. As I remember, an Ďabsoluteí cartridge filter should be 98% efficient.
Clearly any filtration result comparisons would need to be from the same grade filters.
Any type of fuel that is not completely combusted will leave a residue, so it stands to reason that an engine that has several start-ups, or is running too cool, will produce more carbon or ash than one that runs for long periods at full operating temperature.
Similarly, an engine with worn parts and/or incorrect timing will not combust fuel as efficiently as a new or reconditioned engine.

cgwymp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #172 on: February 04, 2011, 01:03:26 PM »
It's a shame Spencer had to be banned. I think it's good that he brought a potential issue to everyone's attention and started the discussion. I felt like he potentially had a lot to share with his experience using WMO. However, his adamant insistence that no one should ever use WMO under any circumstances, that it will without exception ruin an engine in short order, and that anyone who say otherwise is either blind or lying, left no room for productive discourse with him. So I understand why the decision was made. Hopefully going forward we can find some solutions to the problem or at least ways to mitigate it. The longer the engine lasts, obviously, the more the cost of the inevitable rebuild is amortised that the more economic sense even damaging fuels makes.

I don't like the idea of considering an engine itself as just another consumable resource, but I guess that's what it is no matter what the fuel. Better fuel just slows the consumption! But running it will ruin it eventually no matter what you do. All things are impermanent!
Listeroid 8/1

buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #173 on: February 04, 2011, 11:19:51 PM »
   I wonder what the conclusions would be if everybody experimented with the exact same engine and the exact same source oil?  No wonder results and opinions vary with so many variables.

westcoaster

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #174 on: February 05, 2011, 05:54:46 PM »
I can't help but look at this whole debate as a "reinvention of the wheel" sort of thing. I have owned a cummins powered truck since '93. Even at that time there were dire warnings about mixing too much wmo in with your diesel fuel as engine damage would result. I never persued it much beyond "don't do it" so it didn't really come as much of a surprise to see Spencer's posts...

Clearly there is a way of processing waste motor oil into useable products. I posted a link in one of the other threads about a company in North Vancouver BC that has been processing 33 million litres a year for the last 32 years and producing a wide variaty of products.

The only real question is, can an operation like what they have in North Van be scaled down into something a back yard enthusiast can manufacture and operate safely and efficiently all while producing a product that is consistant in quality...

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #175 on: February 05, 2011, 08:07:46 PM »
I don't think any one denies the point using WMO will change the life expectency of an engine. Once the best diesel is placed in an engine it begins to wear down. So between using the best diesel to using the crappiest WMO would the pay off be worth it.

One person having a problem does not mean a solution of some kind could not improve things. Bill S used WMO and had a short life to his engine. From his post he did not say their was no solution to improve things. It boiled down to what the WMO cost to the hours the engine will run. Then this lets people decide if it is worth it.

As for having a refinery in the back yard that is not an option. If it turns out that is the only solution after numerous attempts are tried then I guess WMO for engine fuel is a bad option. I don't believe this is true because it seems that some people are having good results. So there must be someway to accomplish this. As for experimenting with numerous supplies of oil and numerous engines an intelligent opinion can still be made.

 

 
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #176 on: February 05, 2011, 08:20:01 PM »
I sure wish I knew the secret to making a longer post because after it gets so long I can seem to make it work very good.

So back to the auto industry I remember in the 70's when unleaded gasoline came out everyone said it would not work in vehicles not built for it. That was a hoax just to get people to trade. We used it in vehicles that had always used regular gas. It may not have had the same zest but it still worked. So I myself have very little faith in what they say.

So I would guess the auto industry and the gas companies are still like a couple of twins who do not do anything without each ones consent.



Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

bschwartz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #177 on: February 06, 2011, 12:10:53 AM »
I can't help but look at this whole debate as a "reinvention of the wheel" sort of thing. I have owned a cummins powered truck since '93. Even at that time there were dire warnings about mixing too much wmo in with your diesel fuel as engine damage would result. I never persued it much beyond "don't do it" so it didn't really come as much of a surprise to see Spencer's posts...

I think it is fairly safe to assume that Cummins NEVER expected people to filter their WMO with a centrifuge prior to use.
So, mixing in "too much" is really subjective.
-Brett

1982 300SD, 1995 Suburban 6.5, 1994 F250, R170, Metro 6/ sold :( , Witte CD-12 ..... What else can I run on WVO?

asavage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • Nissan Diesels
Re: Wmo
« Reply #178 on: February 28, 2011, 04:36:51 AM »
[quote author=DRDEATH link=topic=5574.msg67004#msg67004 date=1296937201So back to the auto industry I remember in the 70's when unleaded gasoline came out everyone said it would not work in vehicles not built for it. That was a hoax just to get people to trade. We used it in vehicles that had always used regular gas. [/quote]

Induction-hardened cast-iron valve seats did not hold up well to the removal of lead.

I've had to have several cast-iron heads machined to accept hard seats.  The engines would have decent compression, but the rotating valves would wear the seats down so far that the valves would become shrouded in the head, and little airflow could occur.  They'd run, but poorly, and the compression numbers wouldn't tell the whole story.  Rebuild the heads, new seats, and bingo!  Back in the saddle.

Engines with aluminum alloy heads have hard seats already, so little change was noticed with the removal of TEL, but I was seeing only about 40-80k miles on cast-iron heads on unleaded before we'd have to pull them and install hard seats.

So, it's not a complete fallacy that going to unleaded caused more wear.  I know it was a good move, to substantially reduce the lead in our environment, but there was a mechanical downside.
Regards,
Al S.

mactoollover2005

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: Wmo
« Reply #179 on: April 01, 2015, 07:16:49 PM »
Hi Guys.

After reading this topic all the way thru and having a military mechanics background with using variouse different types of oils and brands.

 I wonder if the big difference in peoples eng life expectencies could have something to do with the chemical compositon of all the different brands and types of engine oils. No 2 oil companies seem to make ( for example ) a 5w30 the same ,much less a 10w30 and so on. brand x doesnt use this chemical and billy bob has outstanding engine wear and performance but loosysue uses brand y which uses another chemical and cant get past 750 hrs before a major rebuild is required.

Just my 2 or 3 thoughts.
P.S. sorry for the long post.

Derek
Still working on finding a lister gennie.
Derek