Author Topic: Danger engine damage  (Read 47388 times)

listerboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • I love the smell of diesel in the morning....
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2011, 01:22:35 AM »
OK guys, cut the crap and get to the "concrete vs resilient mounting" topic ;D ;D ;D

Bottleveg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2011, 01:24:37 AM »
Do you want to correct this DD? “The last year of my life”
Be careful what you wish for. We want you to be around for many years to come! :)

If wmo is causing the wear, and fine filtering won’t help, then a trapped liner and chrome plated rings should do the trick? Just change the liner and rings as needed. It would work out cheaper than diesel. Cheaper than wvo, the way prices are going.
I’ll ask at my machine shop next time I go.

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2011, 04:44:02 AM »
I was not asked to do this but I want to share this. This post has caused some pretty high tensions. It was never my intentions to turn this into some sort on a fighting ring. For anyone I may have put off I am sorry. All I want was information which were facts to use when my system gets here from the UK. I plan to use WMO and also supplement natural gas which may help with some of the problems WMO will cause. I hope to see some positive post that might bring solutions to the problem using WMO. Mike
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2011, 05:08:10 AM »
DD

personally i don't see you as part of the problem, how can asking a question(s)
ever be part of any problem?

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

t19

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2011, 05:21:14 AM »
Lets Keep the debate to the topic at hand and not get things being personnel... debate the idea not the man

There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2011, 08:16:06 AM »
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



I just have to correct you DRDEATH as all of my results are based on fact and if you would have read my posts on the subject on the other forum you would have known that.
The question asked was why is the main part of the bore wear on the chrome bore in one spot as seen by the person asking the question as he has seen this same type of wear before in Lister CS bores.
So please don't suggest my posts are just based on theory's.


Spencer

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2011, 08:42:49 AM »
Spencer I don't care to exchange blows anymore. I have several engines coming from the UK in which 1 is a VA SOM and another is a CE which I plan to use WMO and possibly natural gas for fuel. I probably wont use straight WMO now unless supplementing natural gas will help push the nasties out of the cylinders. I spoke to someone who was using straight WMO and had an automatic injection system of water. Now I don't remember how many hours he said was on the system but he said when he pulled the heads, it was twin I think, it looked like brandnew. So using the forum like it should be used maybe we can all figure out how the length of the engine life can be extended. BTW the SOM and CE are both in like new condition. I would rather not use something that will ruin them to soon. Especially the CE. Parts are a little hard to find. Also my wife would just have another reason to say I TOLD YOU SO. Mike
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2011, 10:38:20 AM »
Spencer

i don't know what you assert  rises to the level of "theory" as much as
what might rightfully be an conclusion you have drawn based on your experience
burning wmo in your engine.

perhaps instead of "theory" you have enough empirical data to form a "hypothesis" that you use to explain what your experience has been?

not sure you have done enough testing to be able to have enough data to form a "theory" yet,  much less a "law".

therefore titling a topic "danger engine damage" might well be seen as nothing more
than sensationalizing for the purpose of drawing attention to oneself?

you might want to go back and reread some of the requests for information. there
has been many such requests on both forums regarding your assertions and how you came to your conclusions.

things like condition of the engine to start with, which you finally allude to only recently.
what temperature do you run the engine at
what is the origin of the wmo you are using
what load are you running at while burning this wmo

there is certainly lots of variability in waste oil streams, not all oils carry the same additive packages, or at least in the same concentrations. the new low ash, catcon friendly being much different than some of the other oils used in cars and light trucks powered by gas engines.

there is also evidence of improved wear characteristics by others burning wmo
when the loading is high on the engine, rather than loping along at part load, so might
this also be part of the issue?  i don't know, because i haven't seen you report this detail.

what temperature (coolant) do you operate at?  could it be an increase of as little as 10 degree's F might alter the residue characteristics?  here again i don't know for sure because you haven't reported that either.

and perhaps most importantly, have you considered the possibility that there might be another explanation for what you have observed?  leaking intake drawing in dust? an engine that was not broken in properly? wmo with other contaminates that might not be present in all other feedstocks, such as paint thinners, cleaners, higher percentage of entrained water, higher or lower ph, or some other factor. reporting alternatives only adds to the reporters credibility in most every case, it shows that he has considered other possibilities and has worked to either eliminate those possible explanations, or states that he has not explored those possibilities and suggests maybe more testing or experimentation is in order to eliminate those possibilities.

it much easier to discuss the problem if we have more than simply a statement, and most especially a sensational statement, to work with.

basically i am asking you to take a step back, refocus, and come back and restate your case, make your assertion, back it up with some carefully thought out reasoning, report all the pertinent data and observations, develop your hypothesis, offer alternative explanations for what might explain what you observe, and then lets have everyone take a hard look at what it turns out to be.

that would be constructive, and something i think folks could get their heads around.

simply coming around and making a bold assertion with little to no data, but simply taking in on "say so" really doesn't work well for those with critical thinking skills.

as i have argued before, on this forum,
"it is not incumbent on me or anyone else to disprove your assertions, it is however
incumbent on you to provide proof to support your assertions"

usually it also follows that bold assertions demand bold proof, or at least some very reasoned analysis.

basically i don't know you personally, you might be a great guy, you might well be the worlds leading authority on wmo and its use as a fuel, i as well as i suspect no one else knows one way or the other. giving one the benefit of the doubt when it comes to extending credit for a burger and a coke is one thing, but quite another to expect the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to bold assertions with little or nothing more than "you say so, so its true".

thats asking one to make a leap  of faith, which is something that i for one reserve for things that i cannot prove/disprove,  and have to accept, such as God, and little else.

so lets start over from the top, why not step back and repackage your data, and make this a constructive topic that we all can learn from?

does that seem reasonable?

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 #38 on: January 27, 2011, 11:07:08 AM »
Spencer

i don't know what you assert  rises to the level of "theory" as much as
what might rightfully be an conclusion you have drawn based on your experience
burning wmo in your engine.

perhaps instead of "theory" you have enough empirical data to form a "hypothesis" that you use to explain what your experience has been?

not sure you have done enough testing to be able to have enough data to form a "theory" yet,  much less a "law".

therefore titling a topic "danger engine damage" might well be seen as nothing more
than sensationalizing for the purpose of drawing attention to oneself?

you might want to go back and reread some of the requests for information. there
has been many such requests on both forums regarding your assertions and how you came to your conclusions.

things like condition of the engine to start with, which you finally allude to only recently.
what temperature do you run the engine at
what is the origin of the wmo you are using
what load are you running at while burning this wmo

there is certainly lots of variability in waste oil streams, not all oils carry the same additive packages, or at least in the same concentrations. the new low ash, catcon friendly being much different than some of the other oils used in cars and light trucks powered by gas engines.

there is also evidence of improved wear characteristics by others burning wmo
when the loading is high on the engine, rather than loping along at part load, so might
this also be part of the issue?  i don't know, because i haven't seen you report this detail.

what temperature (coolant) do you operate at?  could it be an increase of as little as 10 degree's F might alter the residue characteristics?  here again i don't know for sure because you haven't reported that either.

and perhaps most importantly, have you considered the possibility that there might be another explanation for what you have observed?  leaking intake drawing in dust? an engine that was not broken in properly? wmo with other contaminates that might not be present in all other feedstocks, such as paint thinners, cleaners, higher percentage of entrained water, higher or lower ph, or some other factor. reporting alternatives only adds to the reporters credibility in most every case, it shows that he has considered other possibilities and has worked to either eliminate those possible explanations, or states that he has not explored those possibilities and suggests maybe more testing or experimentation is in order to eliminate those possibilities.

it much easier to discuss the problem if we have more than simply a statement, and most especially a sensational statement, to work with.

basically i am asking you to take a step back, refocus, and come back and restate your case, make your assertion, back it up with some carefully thought out reasoning, report all the pertinent data and observations, develop your hypothesis, offer alternative explanations for what might explain what you observe, and then lets have everyone take a hard look at what it turns out to be.

that would be constructive, and something i think folks could get their heads around.

simply coming around and making a bold assertion with little to no data, but simply taking in on "say so" really doesn't work well for those with critical thinking skills.

as i have argued before, on this forum,
"it is not incumbent on me or anyone else to disprove your assertions, it is however
incumbent on you to provide proof to support your assertions"

usually it also follows that bold assertions demand bold proof, or at least some very reasoned analysis.

basically i don't know you personally, you might be a great guy, you might well be the worlds leading authority on wmo and its use as a fuel, i as well as i suspect no one else knows one way or the other. giving one the benefit of the doubt when it comes to extending credit for a burger and a coke is one thing, but quite another to expect the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to bold assertions with little or nothing more than "you say so, so its true".

thats asking one to make a leap  of faith, which is something that i for one reserve for things that i cannot prove/disprove,  and have to accept, such as God, and little else.

so lets start over from the top, why not step back and repackage your data, and make this a constructive topic that we all can learn from?

does that seem reasonable?

bob g



bob,
I have not got time to read all your post now, but I did see the word theory mentioned a lot.

NO theory from ME just  REAL life RESULTS based on FACTS


Spencer

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2011, 11:25:50 AM »
Spencer

is it not possible that there might be alternative explanations for what you observe
and attribute the accelerated wear?

have you even considered that there might be other factors involved?

are you that sure of your so called "facts"

or are you so married to your hypothesis that you cannot see that there might be
other contributing factors if not other explanations for the accelerated wear?

i don't know how we work with that?  you are asking us to just accept what you state as "fact" without being able to determine the validity of those "facts".

that is just unreasonable and i have no idea how to address that.

i suppose at this point you can believe what you want to believe, and the rest of us will continue on testing and working with wmo as a fuel.

i have no more to say to you on this subject, and likely any other subject if this is the way you deal with being questioned.

good luck with your project and may you always have a ready source of pure clean #2 pump diesel to fuel your engine with.

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 #40 on: January 27, 2011, 01:02:50 PM »
Spencer

is it not possible that there might be alternative explanations for what you observe
and attribute the accelerated wear?

have you even considered that there might be other factors involved?

are you that sure of your so called "facts"

or are you so married to your hypothesis that you cannot see that there might be
other contributing factors if not other explanations for the accelerated wear?

i don't know how we work with that?  you are asking us to just accept what you state as "fact" without being able to determine the validity of those "facts".

that is just unreasonable and i have no idea how to address that.

i suppose at this point you can believe what you want to believe, and the rest of us will continue on testing and working with wmo as a fuel.

i have no more to say to you on this subject, and likely any other subject if this is the way you deal with being questioned.

good luck with your project and may you always have a ready source of pure clean #2 pump diesel to fuel your engine with.

bob g


bob I have not got time to read your post now, but it's all been put in the posts on both forums and with other people also backing up my findings
Take your beloved engine that could last you many years of good service and put WMO in and wear it out in a year of daily use.
Now if you think that's acceptable that's your choice.
All I done is post my findings and the cause of the problems so that other people don't read all of the misinformation on the subject by people talking about it with no real experience of doing it.

Spencer

spencer1885

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2011, 06:15:57 PM »
Get this, some one from the other forum posted a spoof post to try and back up a weak argument.
It's even a Changfa type ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What next

Cheers
Spencer

admin

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2011, 07:23:05 PM »
spencer

why is his argument weaker than yours?

why is his post a spoof?

how do we know you are not a spoof?

seems to me if we have to accept you on face value, then we also have
to accept the other fellow on face value

as for the changfa, mine at least has an induction hardened liner, and it is hard
as the hubs of hell.

maybe the changfa can tolerate wmo better than a lister? 

surely you aren't saying that is an impossibility?  are you?

i suspect your mind is made up and don't confuse things with the facts?

just because you don't like the results or observations of another does not make
your position correct and his wrong.

time to "man up"  and at least accept the possibility that there might well be another explanation for what you have observed.

what do you say?




BigGreen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Mach1Pony
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #43 on: January 27, 2011, 08:48:52 PM »
I guess he say's nothing  ???

I would like to know more about his feedstock;
Is it auto or diesel crank oil?
Is it various brands and weights all mixed in a drum or is it from a single label?
Does the provider have other items like solvents, hydaulic's or thinners around that he "promissed' not to pour in that drum?

I see this as a starting point and then move to how he was filtering it EXACTLY and potential for contaminating the oil or inlet air with grit, dust or sand.

Rule out the obvious and move on from there, or just move on. I don't know, I'll crawl back under my rock now  ::)
Dave
More Power Ashwamegh 25/2 15kw

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: Danger engine damage
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2011, 10:29:10 PM »
BIO please do not crawl back under the rock. No body is going to attack anyone anymore. This topic needs to move froward with discussion and maybe solutions. It might not be the final answer but eventually we can find the answer. I posted my goal and I don't see that fighting is going to solve anything beside getting the post locked out. So lets all go forward because I have a couple of JEWELS I plan to use on some sort of fuel mixture of WMO. Mike DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.