Puppeteer

Author Topic: Danger engine damage  (Read 47389 times)

bschwartz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2011, 12:57:45 PM »

Quote


These additives burn and can not be left behind by evaporating as they evaporate with the oil it's self.

Quote

You KNOW this, or suspect this?
I will suggest that the additives do NOT burn, and that is why they are left to "cause damage", and that if they are left behind as byproducts of the combustion of the UMO, then there is a good chance that they would also be left behind from a distillation process...

.....But, what do I know...........
-Brett

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

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2011, 01:28:14 PM »
Abrasive ash made by burnt oil additives.

They are burnt but produce the ash, if they burnt up and did not make abrasive ash then there would be no damage to the engine.
My thermobile heater is a vaporising pan type and the additives also vaporise with the oil. This is why vaporising the oil won't leave behind the additives, so home scale cracking won't sort the problem.

Bottleveg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2011, 01:47:59 PM »
I believe the solution is vacuum distillation. This may also produce oil that is suitable to use in the crankcase.
Itís also worth considering .5-micron filtering. I know this wonít remove additives, and Iím not sure these are the problem, but I certainly get a reduction of ash, in my waste oil burner, if I filter finer.
Using wmo as a fuel is too good to reject without further testing.



What sort of burner do you have? and how much black carbon or white ash or both do you get?
As what you see will help others under stand what's happening to WMO when it's burnt.

I use a Kroll and it needs wmo filtered to 100 micron. It produces white ash and only† black ash/soot when the baffles need cleaning (lack of oxygen flow).
I used to filter the wmo to 100 micron but now go down to 50. I have experimented with 20 micron and each reduction has reduced the ash production.
Ash in the burner box is not a problem, I just vacuum it out every few months, but Iím wondering if .5 micron filtering would greatly reduce the ash problem in engines.
What micron have you been filtering to? Sock filters or cartridge?



Now image the ash and carbon that you clean out all going through an engine.
The white ash is the oil additives and you are seeing them every where.
These additives burn and can not be left behind by evaporating as they evaporate with the oil it's self.
It's the white ash that is abrasive and doing the damage, you can not filter out additives.

The white ash I get in the burner is from 50-micron oil. I would expect this ash as the oil obviously still contains a high percentage of non-oil particles.
20-micron oil produces less ash, so I would suggest this is showing that the ash is coming from non-oils that can be filtered out.
Wmo that is intended for use as an engine fuel would be filtered to .5 micron so should contain a much lower percentage of non-oils.
If you have been filtering to 5 micron with a filter bag, or even 1 micron with a low-grade cartridge filter, this may explain the quantity of ash your fuel is producing.
As far as I know, companies that produce Ďnewí engine oil from wmo use the distillation process. One would presume this does not contain abrasives?
Itís important to look on the positive side. Experimenters never fail, they only learn things!

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2011, 01:59:13 PM »
I believe the solution is vacuum distillation. This may also produce oil that is suitable to use in the crankcase.
Itís also worth considering .5-micron filtering. I know this wonít remove additives, and Iím not sure these are the problem, but I certainly get a reduction of ash, in my waste oil burner, if I filter finer.
Using wmo as a fuel is too good to reject without further testing.



What sort of burner do you have? and how much black carbon or white ash or both do you get?
As what you see will help others under stand what's happening to WMO when it's burnt.

I use a Kroll and it needs wmo filtered to 100 micron. It produces white ash and only† black ash/soot when the baffles need cleaning (lack of oxygen flow).
I used to filter the wmo to 100 micron but now go down to 50. I have experimented with 20 micron and each reduction has reduced the ash production.
Ash in the burner box is not a problem, I just vacuum it out every few months, but Iím wondering if .5 micron filtering would greatly reduce the ash problem in engines.
What micron have you been filtering to? Sock filters or cartridge?



Now image the ash and carbon that you clean out all going through an engine.
The white ash is the oil additives and you are seeing them every where.
These additives burn and can not be left behind by evaporating as they evaporate with the oil it's self.
It's the white ash that is abrasive and doing the damage, you can not filter out additives.

The white ash I get in the burner is from 50-micron oil. I would expect this ash as the oil obviously still contains a high percentage of non-oil particles.
20-micron oil produces less ash, so I would suggest this is showing that the ash is coming from non-oils that can be filtered out.
Wmo that is intended for use as an engine fuel would be filtered to .5 micron so should contain a much lower percentage of non-oils.
If you have been filtering to 5 micron with a filter bag, or even 1 micron with a low-grade cartridge filter, this may explain the quantity of ash your fuel is producing.
As far as I know, companies that produce Ďnewí engine oil from wmo use the distillation process. One would presume this does not contain abrasives?
Itís important to look on the positive side. Experimenters never fail, they only learn things!




Every single waste oil burner manufacture will tell you about the white ash produced by burning WMO, google it and oil additives.
Oil recyclers do not wont to remove the additives and will add more additives.
The end product contains additives the same as doing it your self, there lies the problem.

Veggiefuel

  • Energy Machines Ltd.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
    • View Profile
    • Energy Machines Ltd.
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2011, 05:33:18 PM »
Do not use waste oils of any sort unless it's veg oil.
All lubricating oils have additives and when burnt these additives chemically change and produce a abrasive ash which can wear piston rings and cylinder bores out in as little time as 1500 hours of use.
The additives can not be removed by filtering or distilling or gassing of the oil.
This subject is really one for chemists as is a very complex one and any one with connections with the petrol chemical industry may be able to give a better description of what's going on.

Spencer


- You don't publish your own long therm test results but you expect anyone who disagrees to "prove" what they say by providing long term results.
- You read things on other forums and run here to post a warning that nobody should burn WMO.

This forum is also about experimentation and trial/error.
Most of us members are here to discuss and help each other with interesting and sometimes unusual trials (such as various way to burn WMO).
Many are actually doing it and are happy to post their successes and failures which is valuable to all members.
You do not seem to be an expert in the subject so please don't advise the general membership what to do (and what not to do).

Thanks kindly

GM90 engines, Changfa's, Voltmaster Generators, Pellet Mills - www.energymachines.ca

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2011, 05:39:32 PM »


Go and look on the other forum ,there are new posts that back up my experience .
Go and read them and come back here a say your sorry. ;D

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2011, 05:49:21 PM »
ok,, i went back and reread  the posts, and i am now ready to say...

I AM "SORRY" THAT YOU ARE SO HARD HEADED SPENCER!

(laughing my butt off)

this is fun ain't it?

hey, spencer... wanna argue concrete vs resilient mounting?

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

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2011, 05:56:57 PM »
ok,, i went back and reread† the posts, and i am now ready to say...

I AM "SORRY" THAT YOU ARE SO HARD HEADED SPENCER!

(laughing my butt off)

this is fun ain't it?

hey, spencer... wanna argue concrete vs resilient mounting?

bob g



That's a cop out,say sorry first,as I keep saying I don't hold grudges ;D


mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2011, 06:55:18 PM »
ok, i think i got it right ...

you want me to say sorry first?,,, ok

"SORRY" THAT YOU ARE SO FRIGGIN HARD HEADED!

does that work for you?

it does for me!

:)

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

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2011, 07:12:21 PM »
Eat humble pie      EX PERT   ;D

buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2011, 10:44:45 PM »
    Should have elaborated that water injection would be something intermittent such as 2 minutes every hour or such.
    Water is a by-product of combustion so a few ounces an hour should be tolerable. How much water does  a highway, farm or marine engine ingest during rain or while splashed? How about equipment parked outside with vertical stacks in the rain?
   
    Even if soluble oil additives can not be removed by mechanical filtration. One would reason that wmo conventionally filtered to 10 microns then polished to less than 1 micro with a toilet paper filter.  This super filtered oil "should" pose fewer problems than 50 or 100 micron oil ?   

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2011, 11:01:00 PM »
A quote taken from Spencer off the Micro cogen forum.

This is my theory,
 
As the wear is position on the cylinder wall under the exhaust valve [ the hottest driest part of the cylinder and where the crap collects on it's way out]
That wear has happened in 1800 hours on WMO as that same cylinder run on diesel may have last 50000 hours before wearing out in the same places.

My response DD

Buckoo you just set the hook. Scientific experiments are based on theory and facts. Scientific conclusions are based on numerous experiments to prove the facts. So for you to say your engine failed because WMO is a puck or shist. You only have a THEORY.
Everyone Spencer only has a Theory not facts. OMG. DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2011, 11:09:54 PM »
Actually the case of the broke down engine is mostly solved. There is no answer just a theory. Anyway I was talking to someone who used an automatic water mister in his engine ran from WMO. I will find out who that was because he said he pulled his head after numerous hours to see how it looked and it was spotless. This was not a theory it was a fact. I brought up using natural gas and pointed out it might help keep the engine cleaner. Mike DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2011, 11:44:23 PM »
It is my theory that once you put oil in the sump and diesel in the tank the engine starts to wear out. That is a FACT. There is no fact how long any engine will last. It makes no difference if it is orginal or clone. If I didn't believe the orginals would last longer I would not be putting so much of the last year of my life into bringing over some of these jewels. I thought Spencer was dealing with a used engine but I was not sure. It could be possible for an engine using WMO to last longer. For Spencer to take the stance he has is a little ridiclous. I suppose I have also been a little ridiclous but I was getting tired of having someone shove something down my throat that are not facts. He was open to no discussion such as many other people were. Mike DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

hwew

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2011, 01:18:15 AM »
Hi Spencer1885 and DRDEATH,

I just want to let you both know that I just put my application in for moderator on this forum. ;D I just want to make sure that both of you are trying to behave and are not trying to kill each other. :)

Henry