Puppeteer

Author Topic: WMO 2nd GENERATION  (Read 19232 times)

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
WMO 2nd GENERATION
« on: February 04, 2011, 04:16:57 AM »
Bob and I were talking and we thought a new post on this subject might make it easier to keep up with what is being posted. I don't imagine we will ever come up with hard facts what WMO will do to an engine. There are just way to many variables. I would guess we could come up with some strong educated opinions. My first goal is to receive some ash from the Kwik Lube here in town and mix it with a grease base and just test it for corrosiveness on some paint like rubbing compound. That should be easy enough for me. As for testing on hardened surfaces that will be the next step which will take a little longer. One step at a time they always say. Mike DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2011, 10:12:46 AM »
i suppose we ought to start out on the right foot, and perhaps develop some hypothesis to work from, then set out to gather data and info from research and experimentation, to see if we can either prove or disprove the various hypothesis
and maybe come up with some sort of theory that explains what it is that is happening.

lets see what we know for sure from the start

1. wmo can mean just about any waste oil of petroleum base, beit from a motor, hydraulic, trans, gear lube, etc,, mainly because unless you generate it yourself you really have no idea what it is made up of.

2. i think it is safe to assume that burned waste motor oils produce both carbon and ash in varying amounts and probably varying compounds at least with the latter.

3. there appears to be some engine wear issues with some engine's while others don't seem to have the same issues at least to the same extent, we probably ought to figure out why that is.

     a. it might be engine loading that has an effect

     b. it might be engine rpm that aids in blowing the ash out of the cylinder?

     c. it might be that injection pressures, timing might have an effect on the             production of ash, and/or production of carbon

     d. it might be that the production of carbon has an effect, in that the vaporized additives might bind with the carbon and be expelled if we use water injection, rather than collect on the piston and in the combustion chamber to be further reduced to ash and then liberated in the cylinder.

     e. we need to determine just how abrasive this ash is, as compared to carbon,
how abrasive is it vs. the cylinder/piston/rings, how abrasive vs. the bushings and brgs once it gets into the crankcase, cam/crank wear issues, etc.

     f. what kinds of parts seem to fair better to the ash abrasion, are hardened liners more able to stand up to the abrasion?

     g. is there a temperature component? do higher coolant temperatures have an effect on ash wear?  if so why?  

     h. does frequency of oil changes have an effect on longevity? is it beneficial to change the oil more frequently when burning wmo?

     i. are the additives responsible for the ash? which additives are the predominate
producers of this ash? can these additives be removed by a reasonable process?
chemical? or distillation?

     j. does combustion chamber temperatures have an effect on the production of the ash?  does a lower combustion temperature produce less ash? more ash? does
higher or lower temperatures alter the composition of the ash or its abrasive nature?

this list could go on and on, the point being basically until such time we actually develop such a list, put it up on a big black board, develop a diagnostic flow chart,
and start with what we can answer, do the experiments to find answers to the easy questions, maybe the picture will come into focus so that we can determine what the process is from start to finish. then we can determine how best to address the issue, and do an analysis of a cost/benefit ratio among other things.

i am hip to getting into the weeds on this one, if there are others that want to get involved and try to help with adding more questions, and help to find some answers to any of the questions that they are able to via personal experience, observation or because of their career position.  

we have folks from all across the spectrum , from mechanics to rocket scientists, chemist to medical doctors, students to retiree's, we ought to have enough brain power to clearly identify the problem, quantify it, and come up with a solution
that is not only plausible but workable by everyone.  at the very least we ought to get close enough to the answer and have enough good data so that we could then go
find the expert that is needed to get the answer and be able to ask an intelligent question and likely have all the information/data that the expert might ask for.

does this make sense?

this is a hell of a lot of work for one or two guys, however it becomes much more manageable with more folks involved. more brains to think, read, and search for
answers as the questions come up and are more refined.

either that or we can just burn the stuff and deal with the outcome whatever it might be and never really know what the real problem is or what if anything can be done about it?

if there is enough interest, like i said i would be all over getting into this problem in depth. if there is enough interested folks that want to work through this issue with wmo, i can setup an area over on microcogens (somrad group) to really do it up right.  

if we do it however we really ought to try and follow some sort of scientific method, and by that i don't mean we need to be phd's to do it, rather we ought to follow at least what was taught as basic scientific method back in 7th and 8th grade.

so how many folks wanna get involved with this project?  on this level?
keeping in mind that attitudes such as the one we experienced earlier in the parent thread will not be tolerated at all.  there is no room for attitudes or being married to an idea or theory, that is if we are going to try and actually find the truth.

don't be shy fella's, or try to duck down in the back,  i know who you are!

 :police:

bob g



« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 10:18:10 AM by mobile_bob »
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 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2011, 10:44:49 AM »
Bob if you are not a somrad member will they still be able to participate in the experiment? Mike
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2784
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2011, 10:51:44 AM »
i could  open the topic to members of the forum so that anyone that might want to participate in the project can do so.

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 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2011, 11:17:39 AM »
I wish more people would join because expecting something for free anymore is becoming harder and harder. But I guess the upside is participation to get as many people as possible. Maybe the somrad membership will go up now.
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2011, 11:26:19 AM »
I really like the fact you have made a map of what and where we are going on this experiment. It makes it easier for us simple people. DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

Bottleveg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2011, 12:20:07 PM »
And Iíve just posted in the old thread. Shall I move it over?

cgwymp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2011, 01:10:04 PM »
1. wmo can mean just about any waste oil of petroleum base, beit from a motor, hydraulic, trans, gear lube, etc,, mainly because unless you generate it yourself you really have no idea what it is made up of.

IMO, this is probably going to be the biggest hurdle. The "fuel" is going to be so variable from source to source, and even potentially batch to bath from the same source, that conclusions are going to be hard to draw....
Listeroid 8/1

billswan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2011, 02:31:21 PM »
1. wmo can mean just about any waste oil of petroleum base, beit from a motor, hydraulic, trans, gear lube, etc,, mainly because unless you generate it yourself you really have no idea what it is made up of.

IMO, this is probably going to be the biggest hurdle. The "fuel" is going to be so variable from source to source, and even potentially batch to bath from the same source, that conclusions are going to be hard to draw....

Yes no doubt that IS the biggest hurtle.

Last night I mixed up another batch of oil for my 16/1 it was filtered last year and now again as it went into the day tank along with 20% old number 2 diesel. Now the next barrel in line is actually labled trans hydraulic out of a John Deere tractor transmission it is ONE of very few that I will know what it actually is.....

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 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2011, 02:41:21 PM »
I think we should still be able to have some intelligent opinions. I can live with that if others can. DD
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

cgwymp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2011, 02:53:05 PM »
I think we should still be able to have some intelligent opinions.

Of that I have no doubt! I just think that comparing results from various testers is going to be difficult and conclusions will have to be viewed in the context of highly variable fuel composition.

I DO think that serious investigation is worthwhile....
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 02:55:30 PM by cgwymp »
Listeroid 8/1

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2011, 08:33:09 PM »
I just read a post from the original post on this subject that bottleveg uses WMO in his heater. If you read the post you will see he changed his filtration practice and his ash reduction was reduced. Now it was mentioned about a hundred times that filtration would make no difference. This I believe this could make a difference. The person stating filtration made no difference stated he had very little filtration. So is it possible that some of the ash came form something other than the additives in the oil. I don't doubt that the additives cannot be filtered. This is what I believe congos stated and I believe he is probably an expert on this subject so I believe that to be a fact. Mike DD
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 08:34:51 PM by DRDEATH »
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.

Bottleveg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2011, 09:21:59 PM »
(Copeid over from old thread)
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.

Bottleveg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2011, 09:39:32 PM »
DD,
I copied this from your post on the other thread-
ďAs for having a refinery in the back yard that is not an option.Ē
Personally I think it is an option, maybe not one of those huge towers with flashing lights on the top, but Iím sure something can be made that is both safe and cost effective. Iím borrowing my partners pressure cooker at the moment.  :laugh:

DRDEATH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2011, 10:00:43 PM »
You mean I can't have a blinking light for low flying airplanes. DARN. Thanks for moving your post. I was going to do it but I thought I would let you. Im trying to keep a clean nose. Now I am going to have to put a blinking light up for sale on flea bay. LOL
Breast cancer kills. It takes money to save lives.