Author Topic: Danger engine damage  (Read 50338 times)

billswan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #150 on: January 31, 2011, 02:14:38 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjQAA8F5rM

Still no reply from mobile bob,
Well I suppose he was one of the main people disregarding my findings and as the evidence mounted to support my results he has gone very quiet  ;D

Spencer

No spencer he is just very busy, and although I am just guessing, he will have a response soon.

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?

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #151 on: January 31, 2011, 03:39:57 PM »
Spencer:

i got your pm's and email and responded to both in post #159
now then i see you have posted another video and apparently
interested in my reaction.

first let me restate what i have said on several occasions

1. i am not saying that your engine has not worn out due to abrasives

2. i have asked that we take a good look at the situation, and try to
qualify and quantify the problem as reported.

3. i have suggested that perhaps there is something that might be done
to mitigate the problem

4. i have suggested that there might be other factors involved that aggravate
or accelerate the wear you have experienced

5. i have suggested that it is possible that things like a hardened liner, higher temperatures, might extend the lifespan of an engine burning wmo

etc etc.

having said all that before and restating it again, i have a few more questions

1. the latest video, with your narrative is the first decent presentation that provides us something other than a guy typing on a forum telling us the sky is falling, however
there are significant problems with the report.

2. it appear your test was using approx 7 gallons of oil, that would appear to be a huge amount of ash and carbon from that amount of oil

3. you do not mention by what means did you burn this oil, in an engine? in an oil burning furnace? something else?

4. clearly this experiment was not in an engine, as such volume of ash and carbon would destroy an engine is perhaps a few dozen hours, so are we to conclude that this product was from an oil burning furnace of some sort?

also are you aware of , at least it would appear from your video that you are unaware of the chemical treatment processes outlined by cognos over on the microcogen.info forum, the process is designed to strip the additives from the oil.

apogee has also posted video's of a distillation unit, that you summarily dismiss as also vaporizing the additives, even if this is the case it is not likely that those additives all condense at the same temperature as the fuel stock that is recovered.
with a decent cooling tower one ought to be able to separate out the fraction that has the fuel oil and that fraction that carries most if not all of the additives.

lastly, are you aware of the fellow in georgia that reports an engine for sale, while it needs a pair of sleeves, pistons, and rings, he has amassed 17k hours on the indian clone running exclusively wmo, transfluid, hyd oils etc. as he posted the engine for
sale back in early december it is unlikely he has a dog in this hunt, and simply is being honest about his engine and his experience. clearly something is different with his engine, his oil, the way he is processing the oil or something? he got 10x the run time that you did in your exercise.

in closing, yes there seems to be a problem burning waste motor oil for some folks with some engine's under some conditions,  we still don't have all the answers yet, we simply have anecdotal evidence that wmo will kill your engine and we have anecdotal evidence that it is just fine as a fuel.

with fuel prices what they are, and with the destablization of the middle east currently taking place (egypt being the latest problem) it is likely that oil prices will
do nothing but escalate. this will lead more folks to wmo and wvo as alternatives along with woodgas and yes even frog farts if one has enough of them to use as fuels.

we need to move forward and qualify and quantify this problem, find ways to mitigate it so that engine life can be extended to something acceptable and dependable.

thats all i am saying (most of which i have said over and over before)

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 #152 on: January 31, 2011, 03:43:22 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjQAA8F5rM

Billswan,
The rapid piston ring and bore wear now seems to have a few people thinking, and when you look at the shear volume of ash from burning WMO it all starts to make sense.

Spencer

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #153 on: January 31, 2011, 03:55:40 PM »
i would like to add a couple more thoughts if i might

i am not at all sure that all of the ash formation occurs in the cylinder, i am relatively sure that significant amount is likely made in the exhaust port and out in the header pipe. the reasoning is this, as  you burn fuel of any type in a diesel (especially one of primitive design) you will produce carbon, this carbon will exit the exhaust port in significant quantities, and with it carry additives and metal particle from the wmo.

under load, the heat of combustion will be such that there will be flames exiting the port at blowdown and there will be excess oxygen present during crossover, these two combine to after burn the carbon and turn a significant amount to ash. this is apparent in the exhaust manifolds of diesels with turbos, where you find the ash before the turbo building up as a whitish hard substance and rarely after the turbo where the majority of the heat has been removed by virtue of the turbo converting that heat to work compressing air.

now it is possible that there are issues or differences in the listeroids/listers with cam overlap, which would do one of two things, either produce more ash in the cylinder or provide the ability to produce more ash out in the exhaust port and beyond under load.

there can be little doubt that the listeroid cam overlap is likely different for each family of engine, and may well be different by a bit on every engine of a specific family because the cam lobes are drilled and pinned in place by some guy that may or may not have a good jig.

there are many variables, we need a datum point to start from, and a very systematic approach to start working through those variables so that we can get to the root cause and work to find a solution to the problem.

it may well turn out to be something very simple that either shortens the lifespan of an engine using wmo for a fuel or the same variable in another quantity might have the opposite effect.

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 #154 on: January 31, 2011, 04:16:31 PM »
Spencer:

i got your pm's and email and responded to both in post #159
now then i see you have posted another video and apparently
interested in my reaction.

first let me restate what i have said on several occasions

1. i am not saying that your engine has not worn out due to abrasives

2. i have asked that we take a good look at the situation, and try to
qualify and quantify the problem as reported.

3. i have suggested that perhaps there is something that might be done
to mitigate the problem

4. i have suggested that there might be other factors involved that aggravate
or accelerate the wear you have experienced

5. i have suggested that it is possible that things like a hardened liner, higher temperatures, might extend the lifespan of an engine burning wmo

etc etc.

having said all that before and restating it again, i have a few more questions

1. the latest video, with your narrative is the first decent presentation that provides us something other than a guy typing on a forum telling us the sky is falling, however
there are significant problems with the report.

2. it appear your test was using approx 7 gallons of oil, that would appear to be a huge amount of ash and carbon from that amount of oil

3. you do not mention by what means did you burn this oil, in an engine? in an oil burning furnace? something else?

4. clearly this experiment was not in an engine, as such volume of ash and carbon would destroy an engine is perhaps a few dozen hours, so are we to conclude that this product was from an oil burning furnace of some sort?

also are you aware of , at least it would appear from your video that you are unaware of the chemical treatment processes outlined by cognos over on the microcogen.info forum, the process is designed to strip the additives from the oil.

apogee has also posted video's of a distillation unit, that you summarily dismiss as also vaporizing the additives, even if this is the case it is not likely that those additives all condense at the same temperature as the fuel stock that is recovered.
with a decent cooling tower one ought to be able to separate out the fraction that has the fuel oil and that fraction that carries most if not all of the additives.

lastly, are you aware of the fellow in georgia that reports an engine for sale, while it needs a pair of sleeves, pistons, and rings, he has amassed 17k hours on the indian clone running exclusively wmo, transfluid, hyd oils etc. as he posted the engine for
sale back in early december it is unlikely he has a dog in this hunt, and simply is being honest about his engine and his experience. clearly something is different with his engine, his oil, the way he is processing the oil or something? he got 10x the run time that you did in your exercise.

in closing, yes there seems to be a problem burning waste motor oil for some folks with some engine's under some conditions,  we still don't have all the answers yet, we simply have anecdotal evidence that wmo will kill your engine and we have anecdotal evidence that it is just fine as a fuel.

with fuel prices what they are, and with the destablization of the middle east currently taking place (egypt being the latest problem) it is likely that oil prices will
do nothing but escalate. this will lead more folks to wmo and wvo as alternatives along with woodgas and yes even frog farts if one has enough of them to use as fuels.

we need to move forward and qualify and quantify this problem, find ways to mitigate it so that engine life can be extended to something acceptable and dependable.

thats all i am saying (most of which i have said over and over before)

bob g

I think any ideas of increasing an engines life to slow it's early death is a bit pointless when the fuel you protested was perfectly fine to use in a diesel engine, produces such large amounts of ash.
You are still questioning my results but have not carried out any of your own.
If any one has to keep repeating them selves it's me as you just wont listen.
How many liners and rings are worn out before the whole exercise becomes pointless.
Processing WMO at home safely and cheaply is going to be unrealistic.
You carry out a test to see for your self and you will see burning filtered WMO as fuel in an engine is not practical long term.
It does not matter how you burn WMO it will still produce the same volume of dry abrasive ash.
I have asked for other long term WMO users to speak up but apart from Billswan who's engine also suffered damage no one has come forward, only a spoof  post on the other forum with a fishy story.

Spencer

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #155 on: January 31, 2011, 04:26:20 PM »
i would like to add a couple more thoughts if i might

i am not at all sure that all of the ash formation occurs in the cylinder, i am relatively sure that significant amount is likely made in the exhaust port and out in the header pipe. the reasoning is this, as  you burn fuel of any type in a diesel (especially one of primitive design) you will produce carbon, this carbon will exit the exhaust port in significant quantities, and with it carry additives and metal particle from the wmo.

under load, the heat of combustion will be such that there will be flames exiting the port at blowdown and there will be excess oxygen present during crossover, these two combine to after burn the carbon and turn a significant amount to ash. this is apparent in the exhaust manifolds of diesels with turbos, where you find the ash before the turbo building up as a whitish hard substance and rarely after the turbo where the majority of the heat has been removed by virtue of the turbo converting that heat to work compressing air.

now it is possible that there are issues or differences in the listeroids/listers with cam overlap, which would do one of two things, either produce more ash in the cylinder or provide the ability to produce more ash out in the exhaust port and beyond under load.

there can be little doubt that the listeroid cam overlap is likely different for each family of engine, and may well be different by a bit on every engine of a specific family because the cam lobes are drilled and pinned in place by some guy that may or may not have a good jig.

there are many variables, we need a datum point to start from, and a very systematic approach to start working through those variables so that we can get to the root cause and work to find a solution to the problem.

it may well turn out to be something very simple that either shortens the lifespan of an engine using wmo for a fuel or the same variable in another quantity might have the opposite effect.

bob g


Try this then, burn 15 litres of diesel collect the deposits ,then burn 15 litres of WMO and collect the deposits or try veg oil and compare all three.

Just remember 30 litres of WMO produced a massive 600 grams of ash and all of that is inside the engines cylinder grinding it away.

Spencer

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #156 on: January 31, 2011, 05:11:55 PM »
Spencer did you read the post of the guy who stated 17,000 hours using WMO and was selling his engine. I believe his remark was it was still running just not very well. Then David from Afarica but that is a Changfa. This post is to see if there is a solution for the use of WMO. I called our local drive up and get your oil change shop because I knew he used a WMO furnace. Now the only filtration system is gravity. He has a 3 bay shop and the oil tank runs the entire legenth of the shop in the basement. The oil goes in one end and the furnace pulls it out from the other end. I ask him how much oil he uses in a regular winter and he guessed 2 to 3000 gallons. I ask him if the ash it produced was a problem. He said every spring when they are done with the furnace they clean the ash out and it only amounts to a coffee can full which is about a gallon. So for some reason there seems to be quite a bit less ash produced from his furnace that what you produced burning oil. Some how we need to figure this out. When I used wood heat I didn't have many more ashes in 2 days worth of burning than what you got from 6 gallons of oil. If you wish to be part of the solution that would be great. Please don't be part of the problem. Mike
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #157 on: January 31, 2011, 05:34:14 PM »
spencer'

you refuse to answer any questions which answers might shed an unfavorable light on your assertions,  most notably in this last exchange,, "what did you use to burn the 30 liters of oil to render that much ash"?

you give me hell for not doing any tests of my own, when anyone with any background in experimentation on even an elementary level either knows or soon learns.."it is not incumbents upon me or anyone else to prove or disprove your assertions, it is incumbent on he who makes the claim to prove his assertions"

you have provided no proof! you have provided some evidence but sadly no proof of anything as of yet!

i have tried every possible way of having a dialog with you, if not an open debate
and so far all i get is anything "but" either.

again i am sorry you wore out your engine, as i am sorry for anyone else that wears out theirs.

i have no idea why you are having issues, and quite frankly i am beginning to not care!

go back to burning diesel and call it a day.

i have no more to say to a fellow that already knows everything he needs to know, what else could i possibly add to the discourse?

have a great life, and good luck with your project

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

bschwartz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #158 on: January 31, 2011, 05:36:52 PM »
Ooohhhh!!!! I want to convert my listeroid to run on frog farts!!! ;D
-Brett

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

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #159 on: January 31, 2011, 05:45:41 PM »
Brett I have a couple of barrels of frog farts stored. They are for sale. Now I am going to bed and sleep till Tuesday morning till I have to get up for work. DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #160 on: January 31, 2011, 06:13:43 PM »
Spencer did you read the post of the guy who stated 17,000 hours using WMO and was selling his engine. I believe his remark was it was still running just not very well. Then David from Afarica but that is a Changfa. This post is to see if there is a solution for the use of WMO. I called our local drive up and get your oil change shop because I knew he used a WMO furnace. Now the only filtration system is gravity. He has a 3 bay shop and the oil tank runs the entire legenth of the shop in the basement. The oil goes in one end and the furnace pulls it out from the other end. I ask him how much oil he uses in a regular winter and he guessed 2 to 3000 gallons. I ask him if the ash it produced was a problem. He said every spring when they are done with the furnace they clean the ash out and it only amounts to a coffee can full which is about a gallon. So for some reason there seems to be quite a bit less ash produced from his furnace that what you produced burning oil. Some how we need to figure this out. When I used wood heat I didn't have many more ashes in 2 days worth of burning than what you got from 6 gallons of oil. If you wish to be part of the solution that would be great. Please don't be part of the problem. Mike


DD,
Anyone who tells you that they burn 3000 gallons of waste oil and only get a coffee can full of ash is mad  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Go to this forum and ask people who use WMO how much ash is produced    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/altfuelfurnace/
I tried emailing the chap with the Listeroid but no reply. He probably was doing the same as bill and I, and then got fed up with all the maintenance problems and costs.
The chap from Africa needs to post pictures and explain his full story and his results and also why he has only just appeared at the same time as someone we know was starting to lose credibility with their argument.
I have no problem with anyone, but I just don't want anyone else to waste their time and money on setting up a generator because people have made untrue statements that they can run there engine on WMO for any length of time without wearing it in super quick time.
I may still have a trick up my sleeve yet and will ponder on it.

Spencer


DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #161 on: January 31, 2011, 07:34:43 PM »
Spencer when the whole world is wrong and you are right shows there really is a problem. You have some more tricks up your sleve. This is not about tricks. It is about FACTS AND SOLUTIONS. Goodby Spencer.
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #162 on: January 31, 2011, 08:10:37 PM »
Spencer when the whole world is wrong and you are right shows there really is a problem. You have some more tricks up your sleve. This is not about tricks. It is about FACTS AND SOLUTIONS. Goodby Spencer.

No tricks from me DD
From our recent conversations on the forums and through pm you have show your real colours as some one who is clueless  when it comes to machinery and mechanical things with very little knowledge of the basics.
I have given you the FACTS so get on with what you want.
I have also gone to the effort of talking to the chap with the Lister CE as you asked me to do thanks for wasting my time.
 

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #163 on: January 31, 2011, 08:13:25 PM »
to the group:

mark my business partner burns waste motor oil to heat both the shop and his house

his house is quite large by most standards at ~6000sq/ft, the shop ~3000sq/ft

the house uses an omni waste oil boiler and the shop a lenaire waste oil air/air heater.

the omni is cleaned out every month and produces about 2 gallons of ash and carbon, after burning anywhere between 4 and 15 gallons per day

the lenaire burns a butt load of oil all winter and is cleaned out once a year, it produces approx 1/2 gallon of ash/carbon

so why the disparity? and what can we learn from it?

one possible and probable explanation might be,  the boiler sidewalls are ~120 degree's F while it is likely that the sidewalls of the air/flue gas exchanger of the lenaire is probably well over 200 degree's F

the cooler side walls of the boiler will allow a much higher deposition of carbon
and some ash, the deposits of carbon would then be further heated by the continuous flames converting more and more of the carbon to ash.

the hotter side walls of the lenaire would impede the deposition of carbon and ash, and the force of the blower/gun assy would simply expel a significantly higher amount of carbon out the stack before further flame and heat could convert that carbon to ash, therefore explaining the much lower ash deposits in the furnace at cleanout.

now if we go back and look at spencer's rig and how he uses it

he reports using it to provide power for his modest home, and from the video it would appear he uses a 55gallon drum in thermal siphon.  

it is my bet that the majority of run time the engines is lightly loaded, perhaps under
1kw electrical, with this size of cooling capacity it is likely that the engine is running too cool, perhaps no more than the omni reference earlier. if this is the case, as i am fairly certain of, any carbon will deposit more so in the cylinder/piston, and head
and be subjected to further heating and convert to more ash,, light loading also causes
an engine to load up a bit, added oily patially burned goop combined with this ash
and collected in the rings and ring lands would work together to wear the dog snot out
of his engine.

this might also explain how something like a changfa 195 does so much better on waster oil as related by the fellow David from africa, the cooling system of a changfa is such that even without a load the engine will attain much higher temperatures than a lister can achieve. due to a much smaller cooling capacity
of approx 2 gallons as opposed to 30 or more in the 55 gallon drum.

the lister uses the surface of the drum to release the heat from the coolant water, while the changfa uses the phase change to cool with so much less coolant and far less surface area.

i also strongly suspect that the fellow with the ashwemegh 12/2 in georgia
had his setup either thermstatically controlled, under heavier average loading, or had
a cooling system sized appropriately for the load he presented to the engine.

there are lots of pieces to this puzzle, and a clearer picture is emerging.

it seems obvious to me that burning waste motor oil produces ash, how much ash,
 where it gets generated and deposited as well as how an engine is able to tolerate
it will all work together to establish how long the engine is likely to last.

it seem reasonable to conclude that running an engine at a light average load, running with an oversized cooling system for that average load, made from parts of lower quality than what might be needed for this type of fuel, will all work together to dramatically limit the longevity of the engine,,, as has been reported by spencer.

bob g

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