Lister Engine Forum

Alternative fuels => Waste Motor Oil => Topic started by: spencer1885 on January 25, 2011, 08:45:49 PM

Title: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 25, 2011, 08:45:49 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: buickanddeere on January 26, 2011, 04:19:30 AM
  I keep wondering if water injection would keep the deposits blasted off the injector, piston and ports?
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: billswan on January 26, 2011, 04:23:29 AM
  I keep wondering if water injection would keep the deposits blasted off the injector, piston and ports?

I might  try it with my 16/1 but someone, cannot remember who said that they had tried a quart an hour and it made the crankcase oil milky. The darn roids run  too cold on the bottom end.

Billswan
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 26, 2011, 06:12:18 AM
Spencer:

"Do not use waste oils of any sort unless it's veg oil."
        this is a bold statement on your part,
        waste oils of any sort?  oh really?

"All lubricating oils have additives and when burnt these additives chemically change and produce a abrasive ash..."

        yes it is true that lube oils contain additives, however where is it written that
        these additives chemically change to an abrasive ash?


 "which can wear piston rings and cylinder bores out in as little time as 1500 hours of use."

       this might also be true of some oils and some engine's, however it isalso           likely true that there are combinations of oil and engine types that might well do significantly better than 1500hours,  even you reported 2000 hours or 33.3% longer life than your assertion

"The additives can not be removed by filtering or distilling or gassing of the oil."

      Bullcrap!  unless you can produce some documentation of this as fact, i think you are overstating to say the least, filtering by common means might be ineffective, but  distillation/cracking can certainly separate the oil from lighter fractions, gasses, and leave the additive packages behind, and by gassing you mean gasification of the oil in a gasifier, clearly  you don't understand that process.

     however i might be full of crap as well, perhaps you can produce some text supporting your assertions?

"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."

while i agree in concept, i would suggest that this is not the exclusive purview of the chemist, i would suspect anyone that devotes enough time to study might well be able to answer these and other questions of the technical aspects.

i really believe you are over the line on this one, for all sorts of reasons, most of which that have been clearly laid out here and on the MCG forum.

bottom line is this, even if you are 100% correct, in your assertions, how can  you presume to state with any authority what might well be acceptable for some folks under a variety of applications as being bad.

diesel fuel is 3.50 plus a gallon here now, while waste motor oil is something i am swimming in, and from a source that is consistent and as clean as drained from the engine's they came out of, all the same weight, all the same low ash cat/safe tier 4 compliant oil.

how in the hell can you tell me that running 2000 hour on this oil is bad?  when my
engine consumes about 3/4 gallon per hour of run time at full load, it would consume about 1500 gallons in 2000 hours, at a cost of 3.50/gallon = 5250 dollars

for 5250 bucks i can afford a new engine and still have money in my pocket
(actually for what i paid for the s195 i could buy 10 new engines and have enough change left over to buy a night out at a 5 star steak house for the wife and i)

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 26, 2011, 07:29:03 AM
Bob you are lucky Spencer is asleep so your post will remail for a short time before he makes a scarstic remark back to you like he did my last one saying their was not enough research to say this horse was dead yet. It's a good thing he was not involved in making the first combustion engine. I wonder how many failures they had before they got it??????? I have heard from 1 member that he was using water injection set up on a timer in a very fine mist that it was working good for him. I also wonder what supplementing propane or natural gas might do to help move the nasties out of the cylinder walls??  BTW I have some BBQ sauce and a little Tabasco if I need it for this post.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 26, 2011, 08:39:38 AM
i am far from done on this topic, basically on principle if not on the technical
merits.

Spencer has some big shoes to fill if he thinks he is going to like arguing with me.

man i miss GuyFawkes!

boy oh boy, i love to argue

:)

the part that gets my juices flowing is the whole thing about

"its bad because i say so"  really?

that dog just don't hunt!
bob g

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 26, 2011, 08:53:37 AM
ROCK ON BOB!!!!!!!!!! I may not be the smartest person in the world but I know one thing for sure. If I have the money to do something and I want to do it. No Spencer or anyone else is going to stop me from trying and you never know I might come up with a solution that might be of some use. I can't believe I said something like that.  Spencer give others a chance to prove or disprove on there own. Last I knew God was in heaven. Oh BTW your last remark to me was a little plain. You could have put a few more faces in it. DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 09:11:34 AM
Good morning Death and bob,

When you come up with a way of removing the additives then post it so other people can do the same at home safely.
Before you start adding steam or water injection just think what would happen to the dry ash, it would become more affective as a grinding paste a bit like liquid cement.
And finally before you both rubbish my findings and start recommending WMO as a fuel in an engine I think you should both get some experience of it's  long term use before you start adopting the attitude of you know better.

Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 09:19:14 AM
ROCK ON BOB!!!!!!!!!! I may not be the smartest person in the world but I know one thing for sure. If I have the money to do something and I want to do it. No Spencer or anyone else is going to stop me from trying and you never know I might come up with a solution that might be of some use. I can't believe I said something like that.  Spencer give others a chance to prove or disprove on there own. Last I knew God was in heaven. Oh BTW your last remark to me was a little plain. You could have put a few more faces in it. DD
                           
 :o

What a stupid thing to say.
A fool and his money, as the saying goes.
So if I told you not to stick your head in an oven you would do it any way.  [ stupid ]
 ::)
Come back and tell me what happens ,I don't hold grudges  ;D
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 26, 2011, 09:38:23 AM
Spencer I know for a fact what sticking my head in the oven would cause. I don't know for a fact that there is not a solution for some of the problems when using WMO. As for a fool and his money. If that were a valid statement no one would ever have a hobby. If that were a valid statement Vegas would still be desert. If that were a valid statement I would not be helping with 2 containers of engines coming from the UK. Which you showed you lack of respect for us YANKS thinking we are not smart enough to know the engines were 50 years old and not new. I don't hold grudges. If you would like to give my fellow Americans some respect and others with ideas on this subject respect we should be able to get along. Mike
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Bottleveg on January 26, 2011, 10:43:04 AM
I believe the solution is vacuum distillation. This may also produce oil that is suitable to use in the crankcase.
It’s also worth considering .5-micron filtering. I know this won’t remove additives, and I’m 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.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 11:18:29 AM
Spencer I know for a fact what sticking my head in the oven would cause. I don't know for a fact that there is not a solution for some of the problems when using WMO. As for a fool and his money. If that were a valid statement no one would ever have a hobby. If that were a valid statement Vegas would still be desert. If that were a valid statement I would not be helping with 2 containers of engines coming from the UK. Which you showed you lack of respect for us YANKS thinking we are not smart enough to know the engines were 50 years old and not new. I don't hold grudges. If you would like to give my fellow Americans some respect and others with ideas on this subject respect we should be able to get along. Mike


 :o

I did not say people from your country are stupid, I love the USA and have American friends which I respect a lot.
I did say your statement was stupid, so my comments were directed at you and you only.
Don't get too excited  ;D

Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 11:24:45 AM
I believe the solution is vacuum distillation. This may also produce oil that is suitable to use in the crankcase.
It’s also worth considering .5-micron filtering. I know this won’t remove additives, and I’m 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.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Bottleveg on January 26, 2011, 11:47:01 AM
I believe the solution is vacuum distillation. This may also produce oil that is suitable to use in the crankcase.
It’s also worth considering .5-micron filtering. I know this won’t remove additives, and I’m 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 I’m wondering if .5 micron filtering would greatly reduce the ash problem in engines.
What micron have you been filtering to? Sock filters or cartridge?
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 12:12:20 PM
I believe the solution is vacuum distillation. This may also produce oil that is suitable to use in the crankcase.
It’s also worth considering .5-micron filtering. I know this won’t remove additives, and I’m 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 I’m 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.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: bschwartz 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...........
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Bottleveg 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.
It’s also worth considering .5-micron filtering. I know this won’t remove additives, and I’m 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 I’m 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 ‘new’ engine oil from wmo use the distillation process. One would presume this does not contain abrasives?
It’s important to look on the positive side. Experimenters never fail, they only learn things!
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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.
It’s also worth considering .5-micron filtering. I know this won’t remove additives, and I’m 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 I’m 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 ‘new’ engine oil from wmo use the distillation process. One would presume this does not contain abrasives?
It’s 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.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Veggiefuel 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

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 26, 2011, 07:12:21 PM
Eat humble pie      EX PERT   ;D
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: buickanddeere 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 ?   
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: hwew 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: listerboy 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Bottleveg 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.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: t19 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

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: admin 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?



Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: BigGreen 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  ::)
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: BigGreen on January 27, 2011, 11:16:24 PM
That's my stand. If we can get past the head knocking there is solid potential here to perform some serious first hand WMO research. Spencer has an unlimited supply, the desire (or need) to use it and has provided some crude performance baseline. So what if he didn't document to the nth degree what he was doing, this is still a data point. Actually a solid data point in the aspect that if you collect ??, filter it like ??, and burn it like ?? this is what happens. Fill in the blanks and that is baseline.
From there you either address muliple parameters (the wiser move to manage cost of liners and rings) or change a single parameter, closely monitor and document operating characteristics and note outcome.
Such parameters would be:
Fuelstock >> What EXACTLY is it and how can it be improved
Filtering >> How EXACTLY is it done and how can it be improved
Temp and Load >> Where should this be and can it be changed

Measure and document, document, document
Pull the head and inspect on a defined interval. Don't clean unless required and document (up for discussion). Do this for a defined period, analyse results, change a parameter, and repeat.After a period of time and experimentation things should start falling together. You may not like the results but you will know. You may realize that you would have to process it something like Rbodell or another method to make it pratical, but you will know...
 
Don't give up on the project just because you don't agree with baseline results. Baseline is your starting point, you have it, use it, work it.
I wished I was in your shoes, WMO was a key selling point on buying a roid but I never run mine and it has taken me 7 years to collect ~150 gal's of known stock. I know exactly what oil I have, Valvoline 5W-20 and 10W-40, segregated and labeled, family oil changes.

OK, can I crawl back under my rock now?

 
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 27, 2011, 11:57:21 PM
Sorry the rock went BYE BYE. You are here too stay. LOL  Thanks for coming back. Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 28, 2011, 06:23:53 AM
I was pointed to a site that addressed WVO and some of the problems this person has over come with it. I am not sure but if I remember correctly Spencer and Bill both reported loss of compression before the engines shot craps. It might be possible that some of the problems this guy has over come might be helpful in the research for finding the solution with WMO. Here is the site http://www.veglisteroidnz.co.nz/veglisteroidnz/index.html Hope I did that right. It is worth a look from some members that are more of an expert than me. If it is of no value my mistake. Mike
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 05:39:21 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?








Why do I think the poster is a fraud? - I will tell you.

This was hjs very first post, and he had never posted all the time he has been a member.
Newbies don't normally start their first post with snide remarks.
According to him Listeroids and GENUINE LISTERS are no good and no good on WMO and Chinese made Changfa engines are much better quality and better at running on WMO.
He goes on to say he once used unfiltered WMO and it gummed, that's not a term that any one with experience of WMO is going to use as it is not a term that you could possibly use to describe any of the possible problems you can get with WMO
He sounds like a Changfa sales man who says that the bore is hardened and also the rings, any one with engineering experience will tell you you can't have two hard surfaces in a cylinder as you will not get a seal.

Now if you want to check me out look in the gallery on this forum under the name of spencer and you will see some of my projects inc waste oil heaters and boilers.

If you go to Youtube and type in Lister cs wmo, you will find my videos under the user name of Taliespencer.
The Lister cs in the video is the very same one that I have based all my posts on.
I have not just appeared and have had real life experience on the subject.

Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: t19 on January 28, 2011, 05:46:43 PM
Gentlemen.

Lets keep to the topic at hand.  Is WMO any good for  burning. 

If someone has tried it and found issues, lets look at the issues not the poster
If someone is posting they have no issues, lets find out what it is they did.

The forum is for everyone to learn.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 06:10:41 PM
Hi t19,

Problem is I have posted most of my posts on the wrong forum ;D
Peeps will have to go to the other forum and read the whole story.
I like this subject and so it seems do others :D
If peeps google , ash from lub oils , waste oil burners and maintenance, ring and bore wear from engines burning lub oil caused by the additives, they can see the facts for them selves and make there own minds up.

Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 28, 2011, 07:16:59 PM
Spencer I have actually exchanged emails with David and I find his story and history quite intresting. He has shared that he would like to continue to post but he said he does not care for drama and is glad it has stopped on the other forum. I included information in my email to him about this forum. So I would hope he will share some of his experience for people over here.
He lives in the bush miles for any other town. He said there was a bush plane that comes to their area 2 times a week. So I would guess he would have tested many engines just to survive. They farm, which I am not sure what his idea of farming to your idea or even my idea would be. They carry firearms for protection from wild animals which I would rather guess in either of our countries our farmers do not have to do.

As for the Changfa it seems the quality of them has made them last longer than the listeriods. I could believe that when you see documentaries on China and the little Changfa is powering anything you could imagine. I would guess for fuel some of those people put just about anything in they can find, and as for the sump I could only imagine. So I guess I believe him. For the lack of pictures I would guess cameras are rare. Mike DD


Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 28, 2011, 07:22:09 PM
yes folks will make their own determination as to the value of burning waste motor oil
based on all factors, not just a single one as suggested.

that has always been the point spencer, this is nothing personal against you or your observations, it is just that some if not the majority of those that burn waste motor oil for fuel in an engine will consider all factors and then decide whether to use it or not.

you have made some rather blunt statements that would leave one to conclude that all oils are equally bad, all engines will suffer the same damage or at the same rate, and you seem unwilling to at least look into what it might take to reduce the problem or any other factors that might be as responsible, nearly as responsible or maybe even more responsible for your wear problems.

in my opinion you have taken a very narrow view, and perhaps it is warranted because  you used a genuine lister that you are passionate about. perhaps you view is more toward the collector engine side of the spectrum than the work engine side of the spectrum?  i suspect it is the former and there is nothing wrong with that "if" that is where you are inclined.

just as some folks buy a 1ton pickup for cruising the interstate, or back and forth
from the grocery store, there are those that buy the same pickup and take it to the rock quarry and work the living crap out of it.  certainly the pickup in the rock pit is going to last but a fraction of the time that the grocery getter will get.

are we to conclude that "danger rocks will destroy your pickup"?

using your logic, yes!

however from the owner that needs to work in the rock pile, the statement is of no concern!  he expects the pickup to last long enough to make economic sense once all things are factored in. and if it works at as so, he is happy and has made money.

all i and others have ever suggested is this, perhaps 1500 hours is enough lifespan before an overhaul, "if" you have access to free or nearly so waste oil for fuel?
that is if you factor in what the diesel fuel costs would have been over those 1500hours of operation. under certain conditions and at some price point burning motor oil even if it wears out the cylinder kit, works out to be economically preferrable to buying pump diesel.

the other point that seems to escape you is this, i, among others only suggest that perhaps more work needs to be done to see if there is anyway of improving the problem and extending the time before overhaul? again an economic analysis would be in order, because it would only make sense to process the oil if the extension in lifespan provided enough offset in dollars to pay for the treatment of the oil

in other words, it would make no sense to treat the oil if it cost 1000 dollars and only increased the engine lifespan 500 hour or so, however it might make lots of sense to do so if it only cost 100 dollars and extended the lifespan of the engine 1000hours or more?

as for the fellow from africa, with the changfa
he is a bonofide member, we have checked out his ip and found him to originate
where he claims, and again i have no reason to discount what he reports.

from personal experience with the s195 changfa, yes the liners are induction hardened, however the rings appear to be cast iron. although i have not attempt
to break one to determine this is for sure as i have not had one wear out or fail yet.

hopefully this makes sense to you on some level, if not please let me know what you are unclear on and i will try again.

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 07:45:58 PM
bob,
I understand very well and I know good basic engineering facts.
Do you understand from reading those posts, some of his statements don't hold water.
You and some other people now seem to except my findings about abrasive wear from WMO but not once have you acknowledged my findings.
If you think it's caused by the ash or not no one has posted such comprehensive data on WMO use.
Lots of posts backing up my results from abrasive ash which you seem to forget to mention.

Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 28, 2011, 08:24:46 PM
let me see if i can try again, perhaps there is some cultural barriers
or other factor that makes communicating my point to you difficult if not impossible.

(and yes i accept the deficiency might be all mine.)

for the sake of discussion i will accept that waste motor oil produces ash when burned

and for the sake of discussion lets assume it is abrasive

and lets assume that a typical listeroid will only run to 1500hours before it has worn out a cylinder kit.

lets also assume there are no other factors involved

now lets do a cost analysis, free waste motor oil as fuel vs pump diesel
on a overall cost basis.

in this analysis, it doesn't matter to me, and i suspect anyone else whether or not burning waste motor oil produces copious amounts of micro level industrial diamonds which combine with unburnt fuel and oil to make the worlds finest grinding compound. it doesn't matter if the engine is made from the finest unobtanium materials known to man. the bottom line is the engine only runs to 1500hours, and when we do a cost based analysis it still makes sense to use the product as a fuel.

so the statement "danger wmo will damage your engine"  really is of no concern to anyone other than a collector of a rare engine!  anyone that is working their engine to produce something of value will conclude that your statement does not apply.

it all depends on what the user needs to get done!

certainly nitromethane will damage an engine, however without its use its impossible to win  a heat in top fuel, writing a statement against its use on a forum
where top fuel guys hang out would likely get you laughed out of the place.

all the above does not account for other possible explanations for the problems you have encountered, those other possible factors are lost on no one but you spencer.

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 08:54:31 PM
bob,
The first thing to understand is you can not use WMO neat
Engine oils are not like veg oils which can have there viscosity reduce by heat
Lubricating oils are design to resist heat and there viscosity is design to be stable so you can not reduce there viscosity to suitable levels with heat alone.
So you must cut it with a solvent to make it suitable for the injector to spray.
This is your first COST buying a solvent
The next cost is the replacement rings, bore, piston and gaskets
365 days a year and 8 hours a day of running the generator means you need to get 2920 hours per year from our generator.
You will need every year to replace 2 sets of rings 1 piston and a bore.
6 hp generator will run a modest house, so unless you can't get grid power the economics don't make sense to generate your own power.


Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 28, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
Spencer

from your last post

"The first thing to understand is you can not use WMO neat"

yes i can, i can burn any motor oil up to 15/40 in my changfa at 100%, no solvent
and no preheating of the fuel, i do have to start on diesel and warm up for a couple minutes though.

"Engine oils are not like veg oils which can have there viscosity reduce by heat"

that too is false, cold oil is very thick, get it hot and it will become much less so.

"Lubricating oils are design to resist heat and there viscosity is design to be stable so you can not reduce there viscosity to suitable levels with heat alone."

yes i could, but i don't need to heat the oil for use in the changfa

"So you must cut it with a solvent to make it suitable for the injector to spray."

no i do not have to reduce with solvent, although i might prefer to do so with pump diesel it is not necessary in the idi changfa.

"This is your first COST buying a solvent"

very true, no argument from me on this point, however the cost of the solvent/diesel
used to thin will also reduce the amount of ash and abrasives, which will have a positive effect on engine life, so that additional cost might be acceptable or even desirable.

"The next cost is the replacement rings, bore, piston and gaskets
365 days a year and 8 hours a day of running the generator means you need to get 2920 hours per year from our generator."

this is another area where we part ways, i cannot understand the need for operation of an engine/generator for that many hours per day across the whole year, i could make a very compelling argument for an average of 2 hours per day with a hybrid system that would compete well with grid power. for a total run time of less than 800hr/year

the cost of a changfa cylinder kit, big end brg, gskts for a 195 is less than 150 bucks retail, and less than 100 bucks if bought direct in quantity.

"You will need every year to replace 2 sets of rings 1 piston and a bore."

see above, under my suggested operational parameters, the replacement would be
closer to every 3.5 years and only if the changfa wears out as fast as the listeroid. we
have evidence to the contrary so the meantime before overhaul might well be 5 years or as many as 10 or more years operated accordingly.

"6 hp generator will run a modest house, so unless you can't get grid power the economics don't make sense to generate your own power."

this is true if all you are doing is generating electrical power, and your grid rates are reasonable, however this is not the case with cogen in cooler climates that have high grid power rates.

actually under the certain operating parameters one could generate electricity very competitively with the grid rates in cogen mode even if the rates are quite low, so long as there is a need and use for the recovered heat, but

the basic problem you have is the 6hp engine for a modest house, it would generally have to run long hours to cover the load requirements, and is not large enough to do both cover the loads and be able to recharge a battery bank at the same time.

it takes about 12hp to do both for a modest home in moderate climates for the majority of the year and do so efficiently averaging 2 hours per day run time.

here again the changfa has an advantage over the listeroid, the changfa can produce 10kw/hr/gallon (US) where the 6/1 will do well to do 8kw/hr/gallon (US)

we are now gettin into the weeds and likely would need to start another topic to explore this fully.

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 28, 2011, 09:25:47 PM
Spencer

it occurs to me that maybe you think i have summarily dismissed your observation
of motor oil when burnt produces abrasive ash?

if this is the case, let me clear the air a bit...

i am not dismissing your findings, what i am however doing is trying to quantify
the problem, find solution to reduce if not eliminate the problem, all the while trying to keep an eye on what is bottom line most important to me,, that is the "bottom line"

i am not married to any engine, i look at an engine as only something that does something that i cannot do in a simpler or more cost effective way. to that end if it
gets used up in the process, well that is all part of the cost of doing what needs to be done.

now having said that, i too have an interest in collectible and interesting things, some of which are engine's.  if i were to be so lucky as to come up with a rare engine (either rare because of scarcity or rare because it is in as new condition)
i like you would be very concerned with burning anything that might shorten its life
or damage it,,, however i likely would not be asking it to do any real work either.

so, i suppose where you are correct in your position and statement is when it is directed toward those that are more interested in their engine's from a collectible viewpoint than would be the case for those with a work engine viewpoint.

in my opinion, this forum as well as microcogen's forum are populated with a much higher density of work engine owners as opposed to collector engine owners.
probably by a 10 to 1 or greater margin,

therein is probably the genesis of the problem with trying to communicate your message, the message is of little concern to those that are working their engine's and faced with either buying pump diesel or fueling it with wmo.

this debate would be no different if it were "frog farts" rather than waste motor oil.
believe me if someone comes up with a way to collect frog farts in sufficient quantities to run the work engine's the debate would certainly shift away from wmo.

all this likely is of no consequence in the end anyway, it is likely that with higher oil prices that these waste oil streams will go the way of waste veggie oil, where all of the larger producers will be under contract with a recycler or mandated by law to
dispose only through a government approved recycler making it impossible to get
any significant amount of wmo anyway.

back in the early 90's "saftykleen" (sp) corp. lobbied congress and were almost successful in getting waste oil reclassified as toxic waste, they wanted it reclassified because they already had an infrastructure setup to pickup solvents from shops and this would have been a huge boon to them.  had they been successful we wouldn't be having this discussion now, as even talking about burning waste motor oil in an engine would probably be a felony.

bottom line, your report re waste motor oil >ash>abrasive>engine damage, might have merit on some level, what the quantity might be and how it computes into the cost/benefit analysis is where the rubber meet the road, most especially when used in work engine's.

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: BigGreen on January 28, 2011, 09:33:41 PM
6 hp generator will run a modest house, so unless you can't get grid power the economics don't make sense to generate your own power.

100% agreed, you can not beat the power company by creating cheaper energy with a diesel engine unless everything required is free. If this is your plan give up now. Even cutting well filtered WMO 50/50 with pump diesel will shorten the engine life and when I say engine life I mean liner and rings. You may get to or better than 2000 hr but the issue will still be there. Cutting with RUG will start beating up your big end bearing. It can be predetinating without you even knowing it. Ppl do it but I have been adviced against it.
You can try to prove different theories by experimentation to extend engine life but this is experimenting, having fun with a project, not trying to beat the grid financially. In doing so you may eventually get there but probably not. I thought you were an off-gridder Spencer, sorry.

Dave
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 09:59:57 PM
bob and Dave,
I am not an engine collector as you would have seen from my pictures, all my equipment is as it came,most of it looks like junk, but I have never been interested I the appearance of my stuff but it's all mechanically in tip top condition.
My Lister is a working engine as you would have seen and has to earn it's keep.
You might think 8 hours a day is to many hours of run time but you have not mention the massive cost of a battery bank and costly inverter needed to only run a generator for only 2 hours per day.
bob you say your engines runs fine on straight WMO but you don't have the hours and daily use to post factual data, putting in some WMO and saying your engine runs is meaning less, do it every day and clock up some hours then post it is possible to do.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 28, 2011, 10:15:31 PM
Spencer the guy from Africa runs his engines everyday 24 hrs a day. So I would submitt his facts actual. So if he happens to show up here I would say you and him would have something to share. BTW Bill was on the forum and I guess WMO has not scared him yet. He plans to use it in his 16/1. So we will continue on with his information. Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: BigGreen on January 28, 2011, 10:20:36 PM
I totally agree with you Spencer.
The cost of everything involved to produce off-grid adds up. The initial cost of everything involved for me is well over two years worth of grid power cost. The fuel, maintenance and replacement costs doesn't make it cost effective at all for me. I don't have an unlimited supply of WMO to work with. Buying a bank of batteries every 8 years or so pretty much killed the idea for me. I would if I was forced to. Ppl operating in this mode are well off-grid and have no other option. And as Bob said, co-gen makes it move viable. I live where it is always hot, 73f today so I don't require the heating aspect.

Maybe a Lister isn't the best platform for this veture as well.

But it sounds as if you have already made that initial investment. Work the numbers and see if it falls in your favor. I wouldn't give up on WMO until I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it isn't cost effective.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 10:22:37 PM
Lets get this clear, my hobbies are mostly mechanical and stationary engine are included.
My Lister cs is not a toy I play with and post that one day or I think or I heard that ,it is doing a job 365 days per year.
So my posts are real life results not theory.
Cost is most important to every one and as my results have shown the engine suffers rapid wear reducing it's life to way less than a quarter and consequently massively pushing costs up.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: buickanddeere on January 28, 2011, 10:23:00 PM
  Marine diesels, third world utilities  and  peaking power plants all burn heavy #4,#5 and #6 Bunker C fuel oil  in diesel engines. Using enough heat and pressure, motor oil too will spray into a mist with an injector.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 10:40:33 PM
Spencer the guy from Africa runs his engines everyday 24 hrs a day. So I would submitt his facts actual. So if he happens to show up here I would say you and him would have something to share. BTW Bill was on the forum and I guess WMO has not scared him yet. He plans to use it in his 16/1. So we will continue on with his information. Mike DD
 


DD,
24 hours a day, and did he say he had 5000 hour?,210 days then.
bob's 2 hours a day is no good to him then  ;D

So far I smell a fish :D

No pictures  No post's from him  No youtube   No details apart from his sales pitch  No problems with coking injectors



   You say he lives in the bush so has not got a camera but hes got a computer ???

   5000 HOURS WOULD BE ABOUT 5000 LITRES OF WMO        WHERE'S THAT COMING FROM IN THE BUSH   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D






Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 28, 2011, 10:48:35 PM
Spencer you are not the only person with ideas and information. Let other people be part of this without be sarcastic. Two post ago you mentioned your hobbies and. So hobbies and way of life are two different things. Don't get this post going backwords again. We all want discussion that will take us forward to better ways. David is from a completely different culture and respect that. He is not someone looking for credit for a major break through in the use of WMO it is his way of life. DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 10:52:32 PM
Want's your point?

Bunker fuelled ship engines are being fazed out, to polluting and high maintenance
They are design to burn that fuel
Some have cylinders big enough to walk in which they do to clean out the crap
Can you imagine the size of the injectors which they have more than one to a cylinder

Apples and oranges
 ;)
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 28, 2011, 10:59:36 PM
Lets get this clear, my hobbies are mostly mechanical and stationary engine are included
Spencer this was you statement your own words...... hobbies are not a way of life. Hobbies are something you do because you enjoy it.
David is completly dependant on his system. It is not his HOBBY. Just remember that.

As for your last post it means nothing for people living the bush. I don't see where that came from
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 11:10:59 PM
DD,
There will be lots of people reading posts on both forums and if they read from the beginning they can make there own minds up if they think WMO is a good idea.
My self a bill have not seemed to be able to convince a very small amount of people of the problems but one person turns up with what some want to hear and that's good for them , if WMO is to damaging to an engine then all of a sudden there plans are dashed.
Just like children not listening to there parents
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 11:20:59 PM
Lets get this clear, my hobbies are mostly mechanical and stationary engine are included
Spencer this was you statement your own words...... hobbies are not a way of life. Hobbies are something you do because you enjoy it.
David is completly dependant on his system. It is not his HOBBY. Just remember that.

As for your last post it means nothing for people living the bush. I don't see where that came from


DD,
You missed the point, if this project is not viable it's gone
bob your self and a lot of others have or will have [ one day] toy engines, mines doing a job full stop.
You said he lived in the bush and had no pictures because he probably does not have a camera ???
The WMO you have not replied to my question where does 5000 litres of oil come from???
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: hwew on January 28, 2011, 11:23:52 PM
Spencer

from your last post

"The first thing to understand is you can not use WMO neat"

yes i can, i can burn any motor oil up to 15/40 in my changfa at 100%, no solvent
and no preheating of the fuel, i do have to start on diesel and warm up for a couple minutes though.

"Engine oils are not like veg oils which can have there viscosity reduce by heat"

that too is false, cold oil is very thick, get it hot and it will become much less so.

"Lubricating oils are design to resist heat and there viscosity is design to be stable so you can not reduce there viscosity to suitable levels with heat alone."

yes i could, but i don't need to heat the oil for use in the changfa

"So you must cut it with a solvent to make it suitable for the injector to spray."

no i do not have to reduce with solvent, although i might prefer to do so with pump diesel it is not necessary in the idi changfa.

"This is your first COST buying a solvent"

very true, no argument from me on this point, however the cost of the solvent/diesel
used to thin will also reduce the amount of ash and abrasives, which will have a positive effect on engine life, so that additional cost might be acceptable or even desirable.

"The next cost is the replacement rings, bore, piston and gaskets
365 days a year and 8 hours a day of running the generator means you need to get 2920 hours per year from our generator."

this is another area where we part ways, i cannot understand the need for operation of an engine/generator for that many hours per day across the whole year, i could make a very compelling argument for an average of 2 hours per day with a hybrid system that would compete well with grid power. for a total run time of less than 800hr/year

the cost of a changfa cylinder kit, big end brg, gskts for a 195 is less than 150 bucks retail, and less than 100 bucks if bought direct in quantity.

"You will need every year to replace 2 sets of rings 1 piston and a bore."

see above, under my suggested operational parameters, the replacement would be
closer to every 3.5 years and only if the changfa wears out as fast as the listeroid. we
have evidence to the contrary so the meantime before overhaul might well be 5 years or as many as 10 or more years operated accordingly.

"6 hp generator will run a modest house, so unless you can't get grid power the economics don't make sense to generate your own power."

this is true if all you are doing is generating electrical power, and your grid rates are reasonable, however this is not the case with cogen in cooler climates that have high grid power rates.

actually under the certain operating parameters one could generate electricity very competitively with the grid rates in cogen mode even if the rates are quite low, so long as there is a need and use for the recovered heat, but

the basic problem you have is the 6hp engine for a modest house, it would generally have to run long hours to cover the load requirements, and is not large enough to do both cover the loads and be able to recharge a battery bank at the same time.

it takes about 12hp to do both for a modest home in moderate climates for the majority of the year and do so efficiently averaging 2 hours per day run time.

here again the changfa has an advantage over the listeroid, the changfa can produce 10kw/hr/gallon (US) where the 6/1 will do well to do 8kw/hr/gallon (US)

we are now gettin into the weeds and likely would need to start another topic to explore this fully.

bob g


Spencer,

This is the way I see it. If you do not have a Changfa type engine like Bob G and others you cannot say that the engine will suffer a short life. I know that the Changfa type engines are made with much higher quality parts. I have been around both and I know for a fact that the S195 will run on straight WMO.

I think all of us are pretty much done with listening how bad WMO is for all engines. We cannot help that your engine did not last as long as you expected. So I think it is time for you to take a step back and re-read to what others wrote. So what if a Changfa only runs for  lets say 2000 hours on WMO. And the oil is free. How much do you think it will cost to install new sleave,piston, rings, gasket in a S195? The bottom line is the cost rebuilding is so little that I don't see a problem. But from what I read the S195 engines are putting on hours.
And about some of your last post. Let me make this very clear. Others here have much more experiance than you and I would beleve what they written on this topic more than your posts.

Also your real life results are with what? A Lister or Listeroid? My recomendation is do not run WMO in your engine and let others run what they want and end your desussions on your experiance with WMO.

Henry
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 11:26:28 PM
Spencer you are not the only person with ideas and information. Let other people be part of this without be sarcastic. Two post ago you mentioned your hobbies and. So hobbies and way of life are two different things. Don't get this post going backwords again. We all want discussion that will take us forward to better ways. David is from a completely different culture and respect that. He is not someone looking for credit for a major break through in the use of WMO it is his way of life. DD


DD,
Lets hear from other WMO users ,that was my post on the subject some long time ago and apart from Bill no one was forthcoming.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 28, 2011, 11:39:35 PM
Spencer

from your last post

"The first thing to understand is you can not use WMO neat"

yes i can, i can burn any motor oil up to 15/40 in my changfa at 100%, no solvent
and no preheating of the fuel, i do have to start on diesel and warm up for a couple minutes though.

"Engine oils are not like veg oils which can have there viscosity reduce by heat"

that too is false, cold oil is very thick, get it hot and it will become much less so.

"Lubricating oils are design to resist heat and there viscosity is design to be stable so you can not reduce there viscosity to suitable levels with heat alone."

yes i could, but i don't need to heat the oil for use in the changfa

"So you must cut it with a solvent to make it suitable for the injector to spray."

no i do not have to reduce with solvent, although i might prefer to do so with pump diesel it is not necessary in the idi changfa.

"This is your first COST buying a solvent"

very true, no argument from me on this point, however the cost of the solvent/diesel
used to thin will also reduce the amount of ash and abrasives, which will have a positive effect on engine life, so that additional cost might be acceptable or even desirable.

"The next cost is the replacement rings, bore, piston and gaskets
365 days a year and 8 hours a day of running the generator means you need to get 2920 hours per year from our generator."

this is another area where we part ways, i cannot understand the need for operation of an engine/generator for that many hours per day across the whole year, i could make a very compelling argument for an average of 2 hours per day with a hybrid system that would compete well with grid power. for a total run time of less than 800hr/year

the cost of a changfa cylinder kit, big end brg, gskts for a 195 is less than 150 bucks retail, and less than 100 bucks if bought direct in quantity.

"You will need every year to replace 2 sets of rings 1 piston and a bore."

see above, under my suggested operational parameters, the replacement would be
closer to every 3.5 years and only if the changfa wears out as fast as the listeroid. we
have evidence to the contrary so the meantime before overhaul might well be 5 years or as many as 10 or more years operated accordingly.

"6 hp generator will run a modest house, so unless you can't get grid power the economics don't make sense to generate your own power."

this is true if all you are doing is generating electrical power, and your grid rates are reasonable, however this is not the case with cogen in cooler climates that have high grid power rates.

actually under the certain operating parameters one could generate electricity very competitively with the grid rates in cogen mode even if the rates are quite low, so long as there is a need and use for the recovered heat, but

the basic problem you have is the 6hp engine for a modest house, it would generally have to run long hours to cover the load requirements, and is not large enough to do both cover the loads and be able to recharge a battery bank at the same time.

it takes about 12hp to do both for a modest home in moderate climates for the majority of the year and do so efficiently averaging 2 hours per day run time.

here again the changfa has an advantage over the listeroid, the changfa can produce 10kw/hr/gallon (US) where the 6/1 will do well to do 8kw/hr/gallon (US)

we are now gettin into the weeds and likely would need to start another topic to explore this fully.

bob g


Spencer,

This is the way I see it. If you do not have a Changfa type engine like Bob G and others you cannot say that the engine will suffer a short life. I know that the Changfa type engines are made with much higher quality parts. I have been around both and I know for a fact that the S195 will run on straight WMO.

I think all of us are pretty much done with listening how bad WMO is for all engines. We cannot help that your engine did not last as long as you expected. So I think it is time for you to take a step back and re-read to what others wrote. So what if a Changfa only runs for  lets say 2000 hours on WMO. And the oil is free. How much do you think it will cost to install new sleave,piston, rings, gasket in a S195? The bottom line is the cost rebuilding is so little that I don't see a problem. But from what I read the S195 engines are putting on hours.
And about your last post. Let me make this very clear. Others here have much more experiance than you and I would beleve what they written on this topic more than your posts.

Also your real life results are with what? A Lister or Listeroid? My recomendation is do not run WMO in your engine and let others run what they want and end your desussions on your experiance with WMO.

Henry

Henry,
No one on the two forums has had any thing to add part from theory
WMO experts have not come forth yet
It will run on straight WMO is a point less statement, have posted already aimed at bob who made the same statement,read it.
You have not understood the under laying fact that burnt WMO produces abrasive ash and will grind any engine it's not choosy.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: bschwartz on January 28, 2011, 11:41:22 PM
And if no one else posts, my inbox will be less full of redundancy.........
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 28, 2011, 11:57:17 PM
Spencer

if you would do a bit more reading and a lot less blowing out the same old line
you would find that i have done the analysis, including first cost of batteries, the depreciation of those batteries, the inverter first cost and depreciation and all the other
related bits and pieces necessary to build a hybrid system.

the bottom line is this, yes you can provide heat and power for less than the utility
if  you do your research and do it right, but

you cannot do it in a manner that would allow you to service all your loads on a whim as you do with grid power, it would require a certain level of scheduling
and load management.

you speak of your interest, hobby, and real life experiences with stationary engine's, i would suggest you might be better served to continue your education, and
read up on the experience of those that you debate with here and on other forums.

if you notice i have not argued with you about the use of motor oil as a fuel in an original lister, why?  because i have little little experience with them and even less interest.  i have made no secret of the reasons why either.

your use of the same old line, over and over again (goerblesqu'e) is not going to convince anyone, mainly because these two forum at least are populated with folks
with a higher than average level of critical thinking and analytical skills.

when that fails you revert to a type of rhetoric that clearly illustrates your inability to argue your point based on its merits. thinking that calling fellow members stupid or other negative terms is going to convert anyone is just very naive on your part.

lastly, when it comes to burning motor oil in a changfa, while i may not have massive hours on the clock, what i do have over most folks is quite a bit of solid
test data from my test cell.. i can tell you exactly how much power motor oil makes vs diesel fuel, the difference in exhaust temperatures, exact difference in BSFC and many other things,, i can also tell you that in a changfa it will burn cleanly "if" you
are running at near full load.

Spencer there is a thing that psychology bandies about,
when you think everyone else in the world is wrong and you are the only one right, it is time to take a hard look at yourself, because it it far more likely you are the one that is wrong.

not saying you are wrong, as it applies to an original lister and wmo, as applied the way you are doing it, but just saying the odds are not in your favor.

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 12:05:09 AM
12 midnight going out to switch the Lister off, 9 hours run time today ,26 fahrenheit out side but toasty in side thanks to the WMO heater ;D

Spencer


Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: BigGreen on January 29, 2011, 12:05:43 AM
I give up. I personally would love to see Spencer continue with trying to make WMO work in his system. He has practically everything he needs to try to improve but he keeps saying it can't be done. Forget conditioning the oil, upgrade liner hardness or any other sugestions made. It is obvious that he is hung up on the ash and can't or won't even try to control it. Yes, there will be ash, the more you burn per volume the more ash there will be. Yes, that ash wore out your unit. Either deal with it or walk away from it but stop coming here crying about it

SPENCER >> YOU ARE SHUNNED

Good Day Sir
Dave
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 12:51:47 AM
actually i have learned a lot from the discussion

here is what i gather as "fact" so far and am left to conclude

if you name is spencer, and you have an original 6/1 and burn waste motor oil
for 8 plus hours a day, making electricity for you home, live in england, you can
expect no more than 1700 hours out of a cylinder kit.

now if your name is david and you have a changfa 195, burn waste motor oil, run similar hours, make electricity, live in africa you can expect more than 5000hours
and still have a functioning engine.

hmmm either it comes down to your name or brand of engine? or maybe country you are living in?

the only other report of impending doom was iirc from a listeroid, so maybe it has nothing to do with a persons name, country, hours of operation, what you are doing with it,   maybe its something to do with the engine type?

so lets look at that a bit deeper, the lister had a chrome bore, the listeroid did not
the both wore out in about the same amount of hours, so it can't be a material quality issue, so...

it must be the inferior design !!

lmao

its my story and i am stickin with it!

bob g
long live the mighty changfa,
like an escaped convict, it keeps running and running and running...
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: listerboy on January 29, 2011, 12:59:13 AM
Doesn't diesel combustion produce a certain amount of carbon that also polishes the cylinder walls and rings? Which is harder, diesel carbon or WMO ash? :-[
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 01:09:38 AM
personally i don't think a lister gets hot enough to burn the oil to the ash point, but
rather leaves behind layers of carbon that when exposed to continual heat and pressure produce the ash our friend worries about.

i would suggest that any means of carbon removal probably would mediate the formation of ash.

btw guys

does this remind you of anyone we know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG0ochx16Dg

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Tijean on January 29, 2011, 01:58:15 AM
Doesn't diesel combustion produce a certain amount of carbon that also polishes the cylinder walls and rings? Which is harder, diesel carbon or WMO ash? :-[

good question; It would be nice to put an exhaust particulate trap in place so you could collect, weigh, and microscopically examine the ash for granular shape and hardness. The white deposits on the head really give no indication what volume of ash is produced per unit of fuel consumption. It is only circumstantial evidence at this stage that the ash is mechanically doing all the damage. The real culprit could be gaseous in nature and if that component was curbed perhaps the  observed wear factor could be greatly changed.

I dont have the answers, but I can see too many loosely supported conclusions to consider it "case closed"  I suppose I will likely be told to  S... T.. F.... U.  since I haven't burned barrels and barrels of waste mineral oil.

Incidentally, it has been observed that the strength of ones convictions has no bearing on their correctness!
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 02:15:59 AM
Tijean

i put infinitely more weight behind any of your theories than i do observations
of a single individual that refuses to even recognize there might be other explanations
for what he has experienced

but then again, this isn't your first rodeo either!

many years ago while taking the battery of tests for ASE certifications, i was having a real problem answering almost every question, being multiple choice and having been a mechanic for a number of years, i had seen each of the 5 possible answers to each of the questions at some point of other as being plausible and correct.

that was probably the turning point for my thinking in that was the beginning of my understanding that there is not only black and white, but many shades of gray between.

life was much easier when everything was black/white, true/false, yes/no

it takes a lot of extra mental effort to process all the between possibilities.

so long story short, please post your thoughts,

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 02:39:36 AM
At lesat in might be quiet for awhile so we can hear from some other people with better ideas. Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 02:51:53 AM
Bob I have started a friendship with David in Africa and I invited him to look in on this forum because I believe he has some stories and information to share. I think I am going to send another email to tell him to stay away because I would be embarrassed if someone chastised him the way some are getting. I think his story is completely different than anyone in the US can imagine. Mike
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Veggiefuel on January 29, 2011, 05:31:56 AM
personally i don't think a lister gets hot enough to burn the the oil....

bob g

A very important observation because many lister(roid)s use a thermosiphon barrel setup with no thermostat.
Perhaps big improvements with WMO could be achieved by adding a stat and keeping the engine at 190F.

veggie
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 07:33:30 AM
Veggie I posted a site of a fellow in New Zealand who seems to have done quite a bit of research with WVO and Listeriods and Changfa engines. The problems he found it the roids compression was low and the exhaust temp was also low. The Changfa maintained a 18/1 where the roids were around 16/1. Anyway he has it seems ton of hours and increasing the compression up close to 20/1 which has increased the exhaust temp and it seemed to improve the burning of the WVO. It only stands to reason if the fuel of either product was burned hotter and more efficient the by product from the burn might be more inclined to go out the exhaust and not set in the cylinder wall causing problems. I contacted his to see if he had any data with WMO. So your idea of keeping the engine at 190 should be a start of finding some of the solution. I wonder what how Bill S was controlling his temp and what his compression was in the beginning???? Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 08:07:58 AM
here are my operating parameters with a s195 idi changfa
burning 15/40 low emission diesel oil as fuel

the coolant temp is controlled and operates between 205 and 214 degree's F
the head temperature averages ~238 degree's F
the engine is 20 to 1 compression from the factory

the exhaust temperature as measured with an infrared non contact thermometer runs
at 640 degrees F at approx 2 inches out of the exhaust port at the outside of the first elbow (the hottest part)

the output from the genhead will maintain 7.5 kwatt resistive output, and also another
couple hundred watts for the belt drives, another 130watts for the coolant pump and fan, and approx another 100 watts for field excitation and starter battery charging via one of the twin 555 alternators, for a total of a bit over 8kwatts output.

the exhaust burns cleanly, with no smoke and a bit of rack left, the engine will maintain this steady state operation for an hour or as long as one wants to run the test.

the only failures i had were failed head gskts at this load level, however i have rectified that issue with aftermarket gaskets from gskts to go.

i have had the head off after such runs on wmo and found there to be no more carbon than there is after running straight pump diesel.

the engine will start on straight motor oil, however it does smoke for approx 30-45 seconds then clears right up,

the carbon residue i have found on the piston and in the prechamber (the changfa has a removable hot plug) is soft and easily removed with a thumbnail.

now i have not amassed a thousand hours of testing however, i am convinced that if i were to provide some form of water mist injection periodically or propane/natgas fumigation the soft carbon would be easily cleared before it had a chance to harden and be heated to the point of ash formation.

i have never found any ash after such a run on motor oil.

now we might prematurely conclude all sorts of things, probably be wrong more times than not making hasty conclusion, however
i do think there is evidence that motor oil can be burned successfully and without engine damage in a changfa and perhaps other engines under certain conditions.

i really believe that carbon removal is key, before it has a chance to harden under heat and constant pressure and be converted to ash. having higher compression ratios might help as would higher coolant temperatures.

btw the engine runs smoother makes less noise (noticeably less diesel knock), makes more power (approx 10%) and has improved BSFC (5% better) running on oil vs pump diesel.

all indications with this engine ran under these conditions is the use of wmo as fuel
looks promising, however it might be prudent to follow controlled decarbon by manual or gaseous fumigation or water mist injection.

another thing comes to mind, i have torn down many old gas engine's that were using massive amounts of lube oil, the kind that foul plugs badly and smoke like a freight train. i have also seen copious amounts of ash deposits (white caked up deposits) on spark plug electrodes/tips and in the combustion chambers. relatively large amount of ash and carbon buildup,,, and also have found the cylinders to be in remarkably good shape on some of these engines as well.

those engines that seem to maintain cylinder condition best are those with high nickel content castiron and those that do worst are those with low nickel content cast.

this might lead one to conclude that the ash deposits "if" abrasive, are much harder on
low nickel cast cylinders (cheaper engines) and it would appear the abrasive nature of the ash product is not hard enough to effect the harder nickel cast cylinders.

i think it is time to get my hands on some of the ash, and do some testing to see just how abrasive it really is, and what its effects are against low alloy cast iron vs high nickel content cast iron vs induction hardened liners.

i am going to go way out on a limb and place a bet,
my bet is the ash is not hard enough to touch the surface of a nickel iron block and even less so with an induction hardened liner.

failing that one, my next bet would be that the carbon left behind from using wmo as fuel is no where near hard enough to even touch a hard liner or nickel cast iron cylinder.

time to do some research and testing

place your bets boys!

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: bschwartz on January 29, 2011, 09:04:24 AM
My bet is that soon a post will follow telling you how wrong you are  ::)
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 09:29:51 AM
Maybe this will be a productive day. I will have to wait to see since I got called in last night to work after working Thursday night and being awake all day Friday. I may just go to sleep. Hopefully there wont be 15 more pages to read through. DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 09:47:01 AM
Maybe this will be a productive day. I will have to wait to see since I got called in last night to work after working Thursday night and being awake all day Friday. I may just go to sleep. Hopefully there wont be 15 more pages to read through. DD

DD,

Just remember if no one posts on this forum then people will just go else where, so post some thing informative
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 10:07:30 AM
"... so just post something informative"

boy,, thats like the pot calling the kettle black !

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:11:00 AM
Spencer read my post. I said I hope it will be a productive day. Not 10 pages of arguements about the very same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. There has been some valuable information posted last night. Just take time to read it before you decide it's not on point. OK. You also need to read how Bill who you refer to as one of your witnesses is going to be ready to have his other engine up and running and plans to introduce WMO as a fuel source. It will not be 100% but his engine will be using it again. So that tells me he is not 100% sure it is bad stuff completly. Mike
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:12:48 AM
Bob I have been up almost 2 days since someone called in sick last night. I hope the forum will continue with informative information. I guess I will just see when I wake up. DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 10:14:27 AM
here are my operating parameters with a s195 idi changfa
burning 15/40 low emission diesel oil as fuel

the coolant temp is controlled and operates between 205 and 214 degree's F
the head temperature averages ~238 degree's F
the engine is 20 to 1 compression from the factory

the exhaust temperature as measured with an infrared non contact thermometer runs
at 640 degrees F at approx 2 inches out of the exhaust port at the outside of the first elbow (the hottest part)

the output from the genhead will maintain 7.5 kwatt resistive output, and also another
couple hundred watts for the belt drives, another 130watts for the coolant pump and fan, and approx another 100 watts for field excitation and starter battery charging via one of the twin 555 alternators, for a total of a bit over 8kwatts output.

the exhaust burns cleanly, with no smoke and a bit of rack left, the engine will maintain this steady state operation for an hour or as long as one wants to run the test.

the only failures i had were failed head gskts at this load level, however i have rectified that issue with aftermarket gaskets from gskts to go.

i have had the head off after such runs on wmo and found there to be no more carbon than there is after running straight pump diesel.

the engine will start on straight motor oil, however it does smoke for approx 30-45 seconds then clears right up,

the carbon residue i have found on the piston and in the prechamber (the changfa has a removable hot plug) is soft and easily removed with a thumbnail.

now i have not amassed a thousand hours of testing however, i am convinced that if i were to provide some form of water mist injection periodically or propane/natgas fumigation the soft carbon would be easily cleared before it had a chance to harden and be heated to the point of ash formation.

i have never found any ash after such a run on motor oil.

now we might prematurely conclude all sorts of things, probably be wrong more times than not making hasty conclusion, however
i do think there is evidence that motor oil can be burned successfully and without engine damage in a changfa and perhaps other engines under certain conditions.

i really believe that carbon removal is key, before it has a chance to harden under heat and constant pressure and be converted to ash. having higher compression ratios might help as would higher coolant temperatures.

btw the engine runs smoother makes less noise (noticeably less diesel knock), makes more power (approx 10%) and has improved BSFC (5% better) running on oil vs pump diesel.

all indications with this engine ran under these conditions is the use of wmo as fuel
looks promising, however it might be prudent to follow controlled decarbon by manual or gaseous fumigation or water mist injection.

another thing comes to mind, i have torn down many old gas engine's that were using massive amounts of lube oil, the kind that foul plugs badly and smoke like a freight train. i have also seen copious amounts of ash deposits (white caked up deposits) on spark plug electrodes/tips and in the combustion chambers. relatively large amount of ash and carbon buildup,,, and also have found the cylinders to be in remarkably good shape on some of these engines as well.

those engines that seem to maintain cylinder condition best are those with high nickel content castiron and those that do worst are those with low nickel content cast.

this might lead one to conclude that the ash deposits "if" abrasive, are much harder on
low nickel cast cylinders (cheaper engines) and it would appear the abrasive nature of the ash product is not hard enough to effect the harder nickel cast cylinders.

i think it is time to get my hands on some of the ash, and do some testing to see just how abrasive it really is, and what its effects are against low alloy cast iron vs high nickel content cast iron vs induction hardened liners.

i am going to go way out on a limb and place a bet,
my bet is the ash is not hard enough to touch the surface of a nickel iron block and even less so with an induction hardened liner.

failing that one, my next bet would be that the carbon left behind from using wmo as fuel is no where near hard enough to even touch a hard liner or nickel cast iron cylinder.

time to do some research and testing

place your bets boys!

:)

bob g



Good morning,
bob you have just posted your theory ,with only a few hours of running, now run it for over a 1000 hours and report back
Have you ever heard of an engine manufacture concluding an engine fit of purpose with an hour or so of time  testing it, no you won't as testing is done for thousands of hours over months.
I am going to get to the bottom of this wear problem starting with a video on this forum showing how much ash and carbon is produced to what amount of oil and what happens to the burnt oil inc the different types of deposits and here and why they are formed.
Once that is established then there can be some progress.
Depending on cost I may send samples to a lab for analysing
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:19:39 AM
Spencer you need to read just what you posted. You are ready to post without a shadow of a doubt that WMO is bad because of 1 or 2 engines failed. That theory also need 1000 and 1000 of hours to back up that statement. Why are you not help to the same criteria as you just held Bob to????????????????? And one more thing do you have to cope every post just so it takes twice as many pages to figure out what you have to share. We can read other peoples post.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 10:20:41 AM
Spencer read my post. I said I hope it will be a productive day. Not 10 pages of arguements about the very same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. There has been some valuable information posted last night. Just take time to read it before you decide it's not on point. OK. You also need to read how Bill who you refer to as one of your witnesses is going to be ready to have his other engine up and running and plans to introduce WMO as a fuel source. It will not be 100% but his engine will be using it again. So that tells me he is not 100% sure it is bad stuff completly. Mike

He has already said his engine failed because of excessive wear from WMO that's a fact, he is not sure why this has happened.
As he already had the second engine and it's a di he is giving it ago because he has nothing to lose
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 10:24:27 AM
Spencer you need to read just what you posted. You are ready to post without a shadow of a doubt that WMO is bad because of 1 or 2 engines failed. That theory also need 1000 and 1000 of hours to back up that statement. Why are you not help to the same criteria as you just held Bob to????????????????? And one more thing do you have to cope every post just so it takes twice as many pages to figure out what you have to share. We can read other peoples post.


Fact


Already run for 1000 of hours and so have two other people with the same results  , not an hour or so with statements like it should work.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:26:23 AM
Spencer if you show David anything other than respect for what he has to share we will have a little problem. He has nothing to gain from his experiment. It is his way of life to survive. He has some very valuable comments to share and I don't want to hear you being sarcastic to him. It is not in his culture to be disrespected or show disrespect. What he shares if you done like it just leave it alone. He has has some very good conservations with other members of the other forum. I have ask him to share on this one also.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 10:28:15 AM
"... so just post something informative"

boy,, thats like the pot calling the kettle black !

bob g


Try reading from the beginning all informative facts from some one who has done it not just run an engine for a couple of hours bob
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:36:50 AM
Spencer you have been in trouble on the other forum. Is that you goal on this one also. You continue to argue the same old thing. I would challenge you to read what has been posted. It does not say what happened to you is not true. It says now we will see if there is a solution to prevent it from happening again under the same circumstances. That is how a scientific experiment works. Why do you not understand that??
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:40:42 AM
Did you go to college and take chemistry or biology. Was there ever a time that the information you recorded from one experiment was ever considered FACT. I don't think so. Not in the UK and not in the USA. You run numerous experiments to prove a FACT. This is no different.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 10:43:11 AM
I have run WMO in idi engines and di engines from a Petter AA1 to a mazda 3.5 SLT and a lot in between.
Any one who regularly uses it in the same engine in high levels will experience injector tip fouling from carbon forming on the end, this is the first and most regular problem.
No mention of this fact should set alarm bells ringing
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 10:44:15 AM
well we have more than one that has burned waste motor oil in a changfa
one of which (david) reports over 5k hours of dependable operation and his
engine continues to work as designed.

you summarily dismiss this report, yet we are to believe everything that come out of your
mouth as "fact".

come on spencer, debating you is very much like playing cards with a 2 year old, you start to lose the game and simply change the rules.

lets stay on point shall we?

how about more specific details about your application, what engine specifically? what condition before and after, what kind of wmo?  what operating conditions, temperatures, load level? etc.  how often did you decarbon when burning wmo?

either start to put out some details or go back to your corner, you are becoming quite tedious.

something perhaps you can answer, whether you will or not is yet to be seen...

why aren't you more interested in the mechanism/chemistry that answers the question as to why your engine failed at relatively low hours burning wmo?

it would seem to me that a reasonably intelligent guy such as yourself would just have an inborn, genetic coded, need to know what happened specifically, and how it might have been avoided or how to extend the lifespan of the engine.

i suppose it would be a much easier life to lead, simply accepting everything at face value, everything that pops up first as being indisputable fact, and moving on.  i suppose it might be much simpler not to give things serious thought, and do research to find solutions to problems, much easier to scream the sky is falling rather than actually do something about it.

i suppose your mind is made up, so no sense wasting time with facts huh?

oh yes, i almost forgot,, you have your facts don't you.

too bad they exclude all other possible explanations.

i suspect we will find the answer to these and other questions, likely without your help
so don't waste your valuable time actually doing something other than spouting the same stuff over and over again.

kind of sad really

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: bschwartz on January 29, 2011, 10:51:06 AM
Mike,
Go take a nap.  This (he) really isn't worth wasting your time with.
Lay your head down for a little while and dream of British steel coming to this side of the pond  :) :)
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:52:13 AM
Bob do you not sleep at nights??? I sure as heck would not be awake except I am at work. I suppose I am glad you are awake. It has been a good 24 hours on both forums discussing some possible solutions. DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:53:44 AM
Brett what are you doing awake already. I have 2 more hours until I get to go home. I just want to keep Bob and now you company. LIL
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 10:54:31 AM
spencer,

if you are so friggin brilliant, answer me one simple question

why did it take you 1700 hundred hours to determine that wmo was bad for
your engine?

at approx 1700 hours you report that the engine was completely worn out,
its hard for me to imagine that someone such as yourself that is so enamored with
his engine would have continued to run his engine up until its complete destruction.

you refer to my simple hour or two test as though that is a bad thing, first of all
you have no idea how many hours i have had this engine running on the test bed, second i am running it in a tightly controlled manner and if i found any signs of distress i would be stopping and finding out why.

i don't understand why you would continue to run an engine on a fuel that was rapidly wearing out your engine unless it was either acceptable or you had no clue
that there was a problem until it was too late. i suspect that the latter was the case, and if so you probably never so much as lifted the head to decarbon or do anything until such time as it wouldn't start properly or couldn't carry the load any longer.
then you found a trashed engine, and like many folks these days it is far easier to blame it on anything but ones own neglect.

something just doesn't smell right, and i am pretty sure it ain't my feet.

bob g

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 10:57:31 AM
Did you go to college and take chemistry or biology. Was there ever a time that the information you recorded from one experiment was ever considered FACT. I don't think so. Not in the UK and not in the USA. You run numerous experiments to prove a FACT. This is no different.


The problem is the dismissal of the fact that burnt WMO produces a white ash  That's the first thing that can be googled
The next thing is the dismissal of shear volume of ash produced
Also the dismissal that the ash is abrasive
The over looked fact that the wear is so rapid reducing the engines life to way less than a quarter.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 11:12:05 AM
spencer,

if you are so friggin brilliant, answer me one simple question

why did it take you 1700 hundred hours to determine that wmo was bad for
your engine?

at approx 1700 hours you report that the engine was completely worn out,
its hard for me to imagine that someone such as yourself that is so enamored with
his engine would have continued to run his engine up until its complete destruction.

you refer to my simple hour or two test as though that is a bad thing, first of all
you have no idea how many hours i have had this engine running on the test bed, second i am running it in a tightly controlled manner and if i found any signs of distress i would be stopping and finding out why.

i don't understand why you would continue to run an engine on a fuel that was rapidly wearing out your engine unless it was either acceptable or you had no clue
that there was a problem until it was too late. i suspect that the latter was the case, and if so you probably never so much as lifted the head to decarbon or do anything until such time as it wouldn't start properly or couldn't carry the load any longer.
then you found a trashed engine, and like many folks these days it is far easier to blame it on anything but ones own neglect.

something just doesn't smell right, and i am pretty sure it ain't my feet.

bob g



bob,
Your the one who bangs on about proper testing and writing down result, you love that sort of way of going about it where as I am more hands on and less theory

But for you to dismiss my findings as not accurate is not on.AT LEAST I HAVE AN HOUR METER FITTED AND YOU HAVE NOT that's not very scientific or accurate.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 11:16:37 AM
I can see when I wake up that I will have to muddle through 20 pages because someone continues to quote everything someone says. I guess he feels that we are not able to read it then remember it. CRIKEY
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 11:24:23 AM
spencer, you spin faster than the cartoon tazmanian devil

round and round you go, and where you stop everyone knows,, right back with the
same old song.

boreing!

as for hour meters???  well now i am proud of you, you have an hour meter!
cool!

where did you conclude that i haven't an hour meter?

interesting fellow you are, very interesting indeed.
your circular logic fascinates me in a weird sort of way.

i am really sorry you destroyed your engine Spencer, i would suggest you should stick with well filtered pump diesel. and put away enough reserve to carry you and your family through if the crap hit the fan. yes i think that is the most appropriate thing for you to do, at least until others have sorted out what the root cause to your failure might have been and come up with ways to mediate the problem.

yes...stick with pump diesel
and you might think about buying a modern engine with automation so that it can warn you when it needs service and attention.

you might even consider getting a full service leased generator, with insurance so that
any problems are covered and handled by someone else.

that would probably be the best all around solution for you.

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 11:32:51 AM
Bob I seem to be getting my second wind. Is your hour meter one of those new necular meters good to the 1/10000000000000 of a sec. LOL LOL LMAO
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 11:34:10 AM
bob,
All I wanted to do was tell people want I have found from experience and talking to other people and research
If these facts where there for me to read 2 years ago then I would not be here to day
If this post stops other people from reading misinformation on the subject and they under stand all the pit falls then this can only be a good thing right?
I wish that the problem with abrasive ash was not there and then I suppose every one would be using it as diesel fuel  but then WMO would have a value, and the fact it's not commercially processed in to diesel is some indication of the costly problems involved in it's chemical make up.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2011, 11:45:14 AM
Spencer

fair enough!

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 11:45:30 AM
bob and DD,
You only read the bits you like and I have not posted other peoples thoughts and theory
Why did you both not post your long term results and factual information on this subject before?  We all know you have no long term testing and DD has not even got his Lister yet which bob thinks are not as good as his CHINESE copy.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 11:50:45 AM
Please do not take any of the posts to personally
We all have a common interest
I will do a video and put it on youtube and post the link.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 12:03:06 PM
Spencer actually I do have some Lister's.  I had a 24/2 that I sold to generate money for buying some engines in the UK. I have a 6 hp aircooled Petter which it will be used for experimenting with WMO and natural gas. Then I have my little pink petter for breast cancer which will run on WVO at shows.My goal from this post is to see the best possible way I can use WMO then use it on my engines I am getting from the UK. So you are right my input is from reading and more reading and listening to all aspects. I told you in a PM I really thought you had a great deal to share but you become stuck on just one thing. It cant be all bad. DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 12:23:57 PM
Spencer actually I do have some Lister's.  I had a 24/2 that I sold to generate money for buying some engines in the UK. I have a 6 hp aircooled Petter which it will be used for experimenting with WMO and natural gas. Then I have my little pink petter for breast cancer which will run on WVO at shows.My goal from this post is to see the best possible way I can use WMO then use it on my engines I am getting from the UK. So you are right my input is from reading and more reading and listening to all aspects. I told you in a PM I really thought you had a great deal to share but you become stuck on just one thing. It cant be all bad. DD

Hi DD,
I'm thing 24/2 is a Listeroid right? ,6 hp Petter is probably a PH1 ,I like my Petter PH engines and have 4 of them, only my opinion but 50/50 mix they still fouled up there injector tips.WVO I would love to use and works very well but just to had to get as every ones after it.Just my opinion but I would not run WMO in your lovely Listers but use it in a wet lined roid as parts are cheap and easy
 to replace.

Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 12:42:35 PM
Spencer my 6hp is one weird looking engine. It has to flywheels plus the fan. I have never seen anything like it. Yes the 24/2 was a roid. I hate to think I would have to use regular diesel in my other engines but if I do I will do that. I will not screw them up if a solution cannot be found. I am worried the VA will not get hot enough anyway. As for the CE it will be the work horse. I plan to power the shop in place of the twin I got rid of. I will be able to control the temp on it. I suppose if I have to use regular diesel I will at least be able to buy off road diesel and save the road tax. I still want to incorporate natural gas since it is cheap.

This is nice that we can visit and discuss without there being arguing. Lets try to keep it that way. DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 12:42:50 PM
Please go to youtube and type in Lister CS WMO and click on the video with the user name of taliespencer
I have 7 videos and one of them clearly shows the white ash that I keep talking about.
It's the video marked as Lister cs 6/1 som part 2 that shows the white ash on a exhaust joint and the exhaust exit also which is showing how clear the exhaust gases coming out are.
I will post a new video about the ash soon.

Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 12:45:48 PM
I will have to look at it later. I am still at work and I hope in less than 30 minutes I will be home asleep.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 12:52:29 PM
DD,
At least the CE has liners so if you could get some replacements then you can change if needed
Are you sure your Petter is a genuine Petter and not an Indian copy? as I don't recall Petter making an engine with two flywheels in air cooled
I know a man local to me who has a CE and a CD for sale cheaply, there a bit rusty but not seized
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 01:26:26 PM
Spencer when I got home I went ahead and looked it up. It was the SOM correct. It looked pretty good. I cant wait to get mine. As for the CE and CD what is cheap. I am pretty taped out but parts for these critters are hard to find. I hope when you do your next video you get a little more light. Or maybe it was just my eyes. Please check on the engines before someone else get them. Thanks
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 01:45:35 PM
Spencer when I got home I went ahead and looked it up. It was the SOM correct. It looked pretty good. I cant wait to get mine. As for the CE and CD what is cheap. I am pretty taped out but parts for these critters are hard to find. I hope when you do your next video you get a little more light. Or maybe it was just my eyes. Please check on the engines before someone else get them. Thanks

DD,
But did you check out my other vid's ,you must click on the vid called Lister cs 6/1 som part 2 and you will see clearly the white ash.
As for the CD, CE there of no interest to me but I can put you I contact with the guy.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: billswan on January 29, 2011, 02:52:30 PM
Veggie I posted a site of a fellow in New Zealand who seems to have done quite a bit of research with WVO and Listeriods and Changfa engines. The problems he found it the roids compression was low and the exhaust temp was also low. The Changfa maintained a 18/1 where the roids were around 16/1. Anyway he has it seems ton of hours and increasing the compression up close to 20/1 which has increased the exhaust temp and it seemed to improve the burning of the WVO. It only stands to reason if the fuel of either product was burned hotter and more efficient the by product from the burn might be more inclined to go out the exhaust and not set in the cylinder wall causing problems. I contacted his to see if he had any data with WMO. So your idea of keeping the engine at 190 should be a start of finding some of the solution. I wonder what how Bill S was controlling his temp and what his compression was in the beginning???? Mike DD

DD + forum

The 10/1 used a grundfos pump and a thermostat set at 205 degrees F there is a bypass so the coolant is circulating until thermo opens . even after thermo opens the bypass which is a 3/8 copper line stays very hot and is wrapped around the WMO filter for pre heat of the fuel.

I followed the advise of the fellow in New Zealand and when i was cleaning up the 10/1 I ran the compression up by removing ALL the base gaskets to bring the piston as close to the head as possible. Now I had the CC's of the precup figured but I must apologize as my memory is not as good as I thought it was and I never dreamed I would need the info down the road so I never wrote the final compression ratio down I kick myself almost every other day as I would like to be able to post it accurately but the best I can do is a faint memory of the number being somewhere in the 18 to 1 but not quite  up to 19 to 1. One warning to anyone reading this there is piston valve interference when pulling the stunt I just wrote about so builders beware that has to be addressed with care.

In the beginning I believe the combustion was very good but as I have posted many times I believe the low grade Indian parts really cut the life of the engine.

I will agree with Spencer that the wmo is probably turning into something that is wearing out the cylinder faster than I think it should have.

But I am sure not going to give up on wmo quite yet the 16/1 has somewhat better parts but I am thinking it will not survive either but am going to give it another try hope to have it thumping in the next 12 hours. Give it a day on pump diesel and then introduce it to wmo.

May be I will try some sort of washing process like cognos posted but not to sure how to deal with the waste so won't be diving into that real soon maybe in a year.

The 10/1 ran at varying speeds as low as 910 up to 990 rpm depending on the amount of heat I was trying to create. The gen ran between about 3000 watts up to 3900 watts and the cycles varied but the heating element was the only load so no problem there. The exhaust temp was always in the range of 580 to 700 F at about an inch past the cast iron  exhaust connector. Mostly in about the 620 f range. I believe as the injector fouled and the rack opened to maintain output the smoke signal of the exhaust went up the fuel consumption went up and the exhaust temps went up. These are observations from the more so end of the life of the 10/1 and not so much the first 700 hours sorry again about not writing these things down as I never thought the engines life would be so short. I was thinking more so the engine would last 5000 hours before any serious repairs would be needed. Little did I know it would wear down this quickly.

Well off to get a longer belt for the 16/1.

Billswan
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: dieselgman on January 29, 2011, 03:17:17 PM
We have sometimes used water injection to clean out dirty Lister engines... however, there is a trick involved - full load and full temperature! Otherwise you can suffer from oil contamination and cause damage to bearings etc.. A water mist is fine as long as it is completely steaming off in the exhaust and with most of the Listers you must work it pretty hard to get the cylinder temps high enough to do the trick. I am sure this is more problematic on the water cooled CS than many of the air-cooled models.

dieselgman
Diesel Electric
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: bschwartz on January 29, 2011, 03:22:45 PM
Bill, from your experience, would you suggest running at a higher compression for WVO as well.
That would be fairly easy for me, as my 6/1 shipped with the plug instead of a changeover valve, but I ended up ordering one from CMD.
Raising the compression would simply be a matter of removing the plug, and putting in the valve and keeping is screwed in during running.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Tijean on January 29, 2011, 03:56:15 PM
Billswan could it be a possibility that as wear stated to further reduce compression ratio things really start to snowball downhill. Perhaps throwing in a set of rings at a thousand hours would head off a lot of wear. I found the liner on my 10-1 to be very hard as I chose to do a bit of machining on it rather than the cyl. casting. I could not fault fit or finish of the liner but of course no real measurement of hardness.
The other wear engine we are wrapped around the axle of apparently started out with a used cylinder in "good" condition.

If the wear is not showing up on valve guides, seats and valve faces, and is not migrating down to accellerate wear in the bearings it would be a relatively quick swap of parts if you had them pre fitted so as not have to do shim calculations.

Re the compression boost by changing the cup shape of the changeover parts: I made a new plug to contain my glow plug but did not attempt to do anything but maintain the volume. I did not CC things either so cannot tell you how much you could gain by removing all the concave shape. Hindsight now makes me wish I had kept some notes as my memory is about as good as a three year old with hiccups!
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 06:39:47 PM
Brett and Bill there is a post under WVO from a guy in NZ. I'm not sure if I put it in here. He seems very he has spent numerous hours with pictures and specs. His main information is for WVO. Is this the same fellow you were speaking about. if so I guess I hadn't found the Holy Grail. DAM. Anyway look and see just for the heck of it. Mike DD    back to bed.  DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 07:05:52 PM
Spencer I watched both videos twice. I have to say it is a very nice system. First what is the second motor hooked. Could not tell if it was electric or a pump? Next do you feel the engine was running hot enough? there is a guy in NZ that has has some pretty extensive research with WVO and I have emailed to see if he has experimented with WMO and his findings are run the compression high and run the engine hot. I noticed you were able to swipe you finger across the exhaust less than 12 inches from the engine. I also noted you water was 160. I wonder what if any would change if you maintained 190* water and I would think the exhaust should be so hot you could even think about even touch it. It is a nice video. Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: billswan on January 29, 2011, 07:44:48 PM
Bill, from your experience, would you suggest running at a higher compression for WVO as well.
That would be fairly easy for me, as my 6/1 shipped with the plug instead of a changeover valve, but I ended up ordering one from CMD.
Raising the compression would simply be a matter of removing the plug, and putting in the valve and keeping is screwed in during running.

Thoughts?

Bschwartz

I believe that a change over valve will only lower the compression from where it is now if screwed out and then screwing it in will put it back to about where it is now.
I believe spencer can answer this question better as I remember a post from him about a plug for an original 8/1 being higher in compression and he was thinking of using one hope he reads this and can advise as he is the real lister iron owner.

As to the question about WVO well I have no experience with it but I sure would think higher compression would help, of course the rod bearing will not like it but well that wouldn't stop me from trying it.

Billswan

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 29, 2011, 07:47:51 PM
Spencer I watched both videos twice. I have to say it is a very nice system. First what is the second motor hooked. Could not tell if it was electric or a pump? Next do you feel the engine was running hot enough? there is a guy in NZ that has has some pretty extensive research with WVO and I have emailed to see if he has experimented with WMO and his findings are run the compression high and run the engine hot. I noticed you were able to swipe you finger across the exhaust less than 12 inches from the engine. I also noted you water was 160. I wonder what if any would change if you maintained 190* water and I would think the exhaust should be so hot you could even think about even touch it. It is a nice video. Mike DD


Hi DD,
The second motor connected between the cooling tank and the engine is a dynamo which is charging up the forklift battery, that's the one in the black metal case on the jack truck.
The other batteries on the floor are just the starting batteries.
The dynamo is a 1250 watt second world war radio battery charger, the green box on the floor which I fiddle with contains the controls for it.
Don't forget the temp gauge is at the top of a thermosyphon system, so the engine is hotter than the gauge reads.
The thermostat is 85 degs and  the exhaust is , just went out and measured it but the battery in my laser temp guns a bit crappy and it's between 180 and 260 degs with about 2000 watts of load.
The engine burns all the WMO completely with out smoke and only ash formation and no black carbon.
This wear problem ,just my opinion is caused by abrasion from the ash which is formed from burn additives and is not related to any possible bad running or bad burning of the fuel.
I have sent bob a pm asking him to comment on the video and the white ash on the exhaust but so far no reply.

Cheers
Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: billswan on January 29, 2011, 07:57:36 PM
Billswan could it be a possibility that as wear stated to further reduce compression ratio things really start to snowball downhill. Perhaps throwing in a set of rings at a thousand hours would head off a lot of wear. I found the liner on my 10-1 to be very hard as I chose to do a bit of machining on it rather than the cyl. casting. I could not fault fit or finish of the liner but of course no real measurement of hardness.
The other wear engine we are wrapped around the axle of apparently started out with a used cylinder in "good" condition.

If the wear is not showing up on valve guides, seats and valve faces, and is not migrating down to accellerate wear in the bearings it would be a relatively quick swap of parts if you had them pre fitted so as not have to do shim calculations.

Re the compression boost by changing the cup shape of the changeover parts: I made a new plug to contain my glow plug but did not attempt to do anything but maintain the volume. I did not CC things either so cannot tell you how much you could gain by removing all the concave shape. Hindsight now makes me wish I had kept some notes as my memory is about as good as a three year old with hiccups!

There is no doubt you are correct I believe I have posted that I noticed the crankcase vacuum disappeared and the oil seeps started at about 700 hours that might have been a great time to have stuck in a set of rings to late now.....

And OH MY GOSH the cylinder head is laying out in the shop and I totally forgot to pull the valves and check the seats and guides.
Will do that and report back tomorrow night I hope, if time allows. There is that memory problem again >:(

Billswan

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: billswan on January 29, 2011, 07:59:54 PM
Brett and Bill there is a post under WVO from a guy in NZ. I'm not sure if I put it in here. He seems very he has spent numerous hours with pictures and specs. His main information is for WVO. Is this the same fellow you were speaking about. if so I guess I hadn't found the Holy Grail. DAM. Anyway look and see just for the heck of it. Mike DD    back to bed.  DD

DD

Yes that is the stuff I read.

Billswan

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 10:39:06 PM
Spencer is the ash dry or wet??? Somehow we need to figure out how to get it to blow out. I didn't think about where the temp gauge was located. As for Bob he is probably taking a nap. I wish I was still asleep but I have to work again tonight instead of tomorrow morning. Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2011, 11:40:52 PM
You know Spencer the ash on the exhaust is not a problem. As long as it blows all of it out it wont hurt a thing. There was a guy in CO who had a 24/2 roid with a blower. He claimed 20 K of pleasing wonderful power. Since a blower is forcing air into the cylinders I wonder if it would be enough to force all of the nasties out each time? What do you think?? Beside what could be more COOL than a hopped up Lister. Put a arm on the Lt side of the motor and tell people it is a suicide clutch. I need to go back to bed. BUT I CANT. Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: listeroil on January 30, 2011, 12:02:00 AM
List

It is economical to run on free WMO even including the cost of rebuilding the engine every  1500 hrs.

Grid calculation
3 kw for 8 hrs a day = 24 kw hrs.
24 kw hrs  x  365  =  8760 kw hrs per year.
8760 kw hrs  x  10p per unit  UK grid  electric price  =  £875 per year.

Red Diesel calculation
3 kw per hour =  1.7 litres red diesel per hour  @ £0. 70p per litre =  £1.19p  per hour
2920 hours run per year  @  £1.19p per hour  =  £3474.80p per year

WVO calculation (based on the price I pay for WVO)
3kw per hour = 1.7 litres WVO  @ 0.15p per litre  =  £0 255 per hour.
2920 hours run per year  @  £0.255p per hour = £744.60p per year.

Free WMO calculation
3kw per hour  =  1.7 litres WMO  @  0.0p per litre =  £0.0per hour
2920 hours run per year @ £0.00p per hour  =  £0.00 per year plus two very expensive? top end rebuilds at £250 each  =  £500 per year.

Grid price                 £875
Red diesel price        £3474
WVO price               £744
Free WMO price       £500

Mick
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 30, 2011, 01:23:16 AM
Listeroil I am not a math person. When the letters and numbers are required to figure out something I just shake my head. When I was going to school I could figure out everything I ever needed to know about giving medications and running drips and never learned algebra. I am not sure what the fuel consumption of a VA SOM would be. I also will have a CE that is going to be running the majority of the power. The VA will only be there when the CE is turned off. So I give .50/gal for WMO. Care to give me you predictions on this. Thank you, Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 30, 2011, 02:00:54 AM
Mick

your point illustrates mathematically what i was trying to get across all along

there might be acceptable wear even if on first blush it seems crazy.

it all comes down to dollars and cents, or pounds and pence, or dog teeth and coconuts.
what works out to save you monetarily wins the discussion, except in such cases
as those where the engine is a rare example or some collectible that is hard to get parts for.

pristine NOS listers might fit the category of those collectible engine's one might want to treat very well and fuel with only approved fuels, however the listeroids, changfa's and similar engines really don't fit the collectible type, as most folks look
at them as simply a means to an end,, a tool if you will.

you analysis make excellent sense to me, as it should to most everyone here.

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob on January 30, 2011, 02:15:13 AM
Spencer

sorry it took so long to get back, had to work today and when i got home i had to
take a time out and let the back/hips/leg pain subside

anyway, as to your white powder residue, it may well be ash, and it may well have originated in the cylinder, i am not sure.

i have seen that stuff formed in many diesel engines out in the exhaust tract, engines that go on to run for many 10's of thousands of miles, and when the engine is taken down for repair, the cylinders are rarely ever found to be worn out, or have even a ring ridge.

i can only speculate as to what might be the mechanism behind the phenomena

it might be that the engine's i have seen with this white power residue all have induction hardened liners, high silicon content aluminum pistons, stainless keystone rings and turbo chargers with very large cam overlaps that send huge amounts of air during crossover out the exhaust.  under such conditions it might be that the black carbon is heated to such a point, fed with sufficient air from overlap to actually burn secondarily in the exhaust manifold and form the white ash outside the cylinder itself.

there is so many factors that might have minimal, moderate, or significant effect on the formation of the white ash, where it is formed, and how an engine might tolerate the effects of the ash. 

i am not sure we are ever going to determine what the root cause(s) are, much less what can be done about them unless we know what they are.

so far we have two examples of lister style engine's having worn out with the use of waste motor oil in about 1700 hours, and one listeroid (rbodell) that has a similar amount of run time but no apparent problems, a changfa that seems to be doing well at 5k hours and counting and maybe a few others that haven't reported yet.

i agree this is something we ought to be concerned about, and certainly something we should investigate further to see what we might find as the root cause, secondary causes and what if anything might mitigate the problem.

at this point it would appear that maybe treatment and filtering the oil, diluting it with diesel/rug/kerosene might have a significant effect on the outcome as rbodell has related to us.

jury is still out on this one, and it might be for sometime to come.

bob g
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Rom on January 30, 2011, 03:47:46 AM
Well being from the Bahamas and not having access to any sort of induction hardening shop (if you can even send the indian liners in to a shop and have that done) and if I had an original Lister, of which there are quite a few here, I would refit it with a cylinder block with liner and a new indian head to burn waste oils. They arent making these engines anymore, and I would hate to grind one of those fabled chrome bores to iron dust.

Far as I can see, the 5th stud is redundant in the grand scheme of things. The oids seem to run just peachy with most of them having 4 head bolts. IF the bolts on a RA Lister line up to fit an indian cylinder block, the money outlay may be a bit expensive to begin with, for a new head and block, spare liners and piston/rings, BUT should be much cheaper in the long run because it would save on having a professional bore and sleeve an original block, and the resleeving thereafter.

I definately couldnt afford to have that process done here. Most looking for that kind of repair, would wait til someone was doing a boat delivery to the states, then wait for someone else to bring it back on the next boat coming in, which could be months. OR pay export duties on the parts to be repaired, and import duties on the part and the cost of the repairs. Yes you can technically avoid the export duties by registering the parts with customs, but they make that difficult as hell too. Same kinda procedure for turbos and other expensive rebuildable mechanical parts. Course the smaller parts we would pay 500 - 600$ to fly to the states with the part, have it repaired and come back.

Rom
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: listeroil on January 30, 2011, 04:12:41 PM
DD

Is this what you require?

6/1 engine

Full  load = 0.284 litres per BHP per hour
3/4 l oad = 0.300 litres per BHP per hour
1/2 load  = 0.347 litres per BHP per hour

CE engine

Full load = 0.274 litres per BHP per hour
3/4 load = 0.284 litres per BHP per hour
1/2 load = 0.330 litres per BHP per hour

I ve just found the above figures at Peter Forbes site http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/ and they are from genuine Lister prints.

In my 1960 SOM brochure it states

Fuel consumption on full load   lb/bhp/hr
6hp           6/1       =              0.50
8hp           8/1       =              0.50
7.5hp         VA       =              0.45
I find it strange that the VA engine seems to use a bit less fuel than the 8/1 I would have thought it would use more because of the fan.

Mick

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 30, 2011, 04:13:23 PM
I have uploaded a video onto Youtube today speaking about my findings when burning wmo in my Lister cs generator.

Link below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjQAA8F5rM

Cheers
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Apogee on January 30, 2011, 06:56:17 PM
Spencer,

Very interesting findings in your video.

Simply amazing the ash content.

Definitely would tend to act like an abrasive.

Much to think about!

Wow...

Thanks,

Steve
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 30, 2011, 07:18:34 PM
Spencer,

Very interesting findings in your video.

Simply amazing the ash content.

Definitely would tend to act like an abrasive.

Much to think about!

Wow...

Thanks,

Steve
 



Hi Steve,
I am glad you have taken the time to look at the video.
I was also truly shocked at the sheer volume of the ash and it's no wonder my engine has suffered such extreme bore and ring wear in a short time.
Just the large amount of volume is  amazing.
I have now stopped my generator project and see no future in carrying on with it.

Cheers
Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: Apogee on January 30, 2011, 07:29:00 PM
Spencer,

Check out the links to the vids of the gent who distills diesel from WMO that I just posted.  Interesting approach that might solve the problem.

http://lister-engine.com/lef/index.php?topic=5628.0

Enjoy,

Steve
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 30, 2011, 07:58:41 PM
Spencer,

Check out the links to the vids of the gent who distills diesel from WMO that I just posted.  Interesting approach that might solve the problem.

http://lister-engine.com/lef/index.php?topic=5628.0

Enjoy,

Steve

Steve,

I have had a look ,thanks.
I have seen the videos before but I did not think I was going to encounter the problems I have found so did not consider it necessary and so disregarded it.
I did wonder if I could also produce the 9 litres per day every day that I need.
This idea was mention to me on the other forum and I really started to consider it and got quite excited. ;D
Then another credible member posted that the additives will also vaporise with the oil as well, then I suddenly realised that my vaporising pan WMO heater works on the same principle and all above the vaporising pan is masses of white ash which must have also vaporised with the oil. :'(   

Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH on January 31, 2011, 04:31:07 AM
Spencer I tried to look at the video but our wifi at work is so slow you get about 2 words out then it pauses for about 5 or 6 seconds. You almost forget what you hear. I did notice a large bowl of powder. I wonder if it would have a street value. Just kidding. Im sure the UK has no drug problem over there. I am pretty sure WMO will not go into my VA since it is rare and not easy to rebuild. If I come up with enough spare parts I might still run in the CE since it is easier to rebuild. I am still looking forward to see where the oil washing post goes. It would be nice if that resolved. Thanks for your work. Mike DD
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 31, 2011, 08:55:12 AM
Spencer I tried to look at the video but our wifi at work is so slow you get about 2 words out then it pauses for about 5 or 6 seconds. You almost forget what you hear. I did notice a large bowl of powder. I wonder if it would have a street value. Just kidding. Im sure the UK has no drug problem over there. I am pretty sure WMO will not go into my VA since it is rare and not easy to rebuild. If I come up with enough spare parts I might still run in the CE since it is easier to rebuild. I am still looking forward to see where the oil washing post goes. It would be nice if that resolved. Thanks for your work. Mike DD


DD,
 
Thanks for taking the time to look at the video  :)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjQAA8F5rM
When you are able to watch it fully you might change your mined about putting WMO any where near your engines fuel system  :o
This was the final nail in the coffin as the shear volume of ash is horrifying and feeding an engine a constant diet of that makes no sense.  :'(
I have pm mobile bob and asked for his comments on my new video but so far he's been very quiet.  ;D

Cheers
Spencer
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 on January 31, 2011, 01:12:45 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: billswan 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: bschwartz on January 31, 2011, 05:36:52 PM
Ooohhhh!!!! I want to convert my listeroid to run on frog farts!!! ;D
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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

Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: DRDEATH 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.
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: spencer1885 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.
 
Title: Re: Danger engine damage
Post by: mobile_bob 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