Lister Engine Forum

Alternative fuels => Waste Motor Oil => Topic started by: DRDEATH on February 04, 2011, 04:16:57 AM

Title: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: DRDEATH on February 04, 2011, 04:16:57 AM
Bob and I were talking and we thought a new post on this subject might make it easier to keep up with what is being posted. I don't imagine we will ever come up with hard facts what WMO will do to an engine. There are just way to many variables. I would guess we could come up with some strong educated opinions. My first goal is to receive some ash from the Kwik Lube here in town and mix it with a grease base and just test it for corrosiveness on some paint like rubbing compound. That should be easy enough for me. As for testing on hardened surfaces that will be the next step which will take a little longer. One step at a time they always say. Mike DD
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: mobile_bob on February 04, 2011, 10:12:46 AM
i suppose we ought to start out on the right foot, and perhaps develop some hypothesis to work from, then set out to gather data and info from research and experimentation, to see if we can either prove or disprove the various hypothesis
and maybe come up with some sort of theory that explains what it is that is happening.

lets see what we know for sure from the start

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

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

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

     a. it might be engine loading that has an effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

does this make sense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 :police:

bob g



Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: DRDEATH on February 04, 2011, 10:44:49 AM
Bob if you are not a somrad member will they still be able to participate in the experiment? Mike
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: mobile_bob on February 04, 2011, 10:51:44 AM
i could  open the topic to members of the forum so that anyone that might want to participate in the project can do so.

bob g
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: DRDEATH on February 04, 2011, 11:17:39 AM
I wish more people would join because expecting something for free anymore is becoming harder and harder. But I guess the upside is participation to get as many people as possible. Maybe the somrad membership will go up now.
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: DRDEATH on February 04, 2011, 11:26:19 AM
I really like the fact you have made a map of what and where we are going on this experiment. It makes it easier for us simple people. DD
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: Bottleveg on February 04, 2011, 12:20:07 PM
And Iíve just posted in the old thread. Shall I move it over?
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: cgwymp on February 04, 2011, 01:10:04 PM
1. wmo can mean just about any waste oil of petroleum base, beit from a motor, hydraulic, trans, gear lube, etc,, mainly because unless you generate it yourself you really have no idea what it is made up of.

IMO, this is probably going to be the biggest hurdle. The "fuel" is going to be so variable from source to source, and even potentially batch to bath from the same source, that conclusions are going to be hard to draw....
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: billswan on February 04, 2011, 02:31:21 PM
1. wmo can mean just about any waste oil of petroleum base, beit from a motor, hydraulic, trans, gear lube, etc,, mainly because unless you generate it yourself you really have no idea what it is made up of.

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

Yes no doubt that IS the biggest hurtle.

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

Billswan
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: DRDEATH on February 04, 2011, 02:41:21 PM
I think we should still be able to have some intelligent opinions. I can live with that if others can. DD
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: cgwymp on February 04, 2011, 02:53:05 PM
I think we should still be able to have some intelligent opinions.

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

I DO think that serious investigation is worthwhile....
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: DRDEATH on February 05, 2011, 08:33:09 PM
I just read a post from the original post on this subject that bottleveg uses WMO in his heater. If you read the post you will see he changed his filtration practice and his ash reduction was reduced. Now it was mentioned about a hundred times that filtration would make no difference. This I believe this could make a difference. The person stating filtration made no difference stated he had very little filtration. So is it possible that some of the ash came form something other than the additives in the oil. I don't doubt that the additives cannot be filtered. This is what I believe congos stated and I believe he is probably an expert on this subject so I believe that to be a fact. Mike DD
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: Bottleveg on February 05, 2011, 09:21:59 PM
(Copeid over from old thread)
Iíll put this up again now the shouting has stopped.
Iíve run a pressure jet burner for the last three years on wmo. It needs 100 micron filtered oil so to start I just tipped the wmo through a 100mic filter sock, drained any water, and fed it to the burner. All worked well but the firebox needed the ash removing every three weeks.
Now Iím very curious about things so, after a few months, I drained the wmo fuel tank, fitted a 50-micron filter and off it went again. Ash content was reduced.
I then tested a 20-micron filter and again had a reduction of ash in the firebox.
The burner I use heats the wmo to an adjustable temperature so it will ignite with spark ignition. If I use oil from the top of a settled oil tank it needs a lower ignition temperature than that drawn from the bottom. I believe this is because the non-oil particles settle out and the oil ignites easier if itís cleaner.
What I learned from this is that the ash is a result of the non-oil contamination. Iím not sure what percentage, it could well be that the additives create some ash, I donít know.
The wmo I use on my 8/1 is half micron filtered. Iíve had no problem, other than poor starting at minus 6c, but I donít have enough hours on the engine to give any meaningful results.
I notice Mr Rbodell uses 2 micron and I find his results both positive and encouraging.
I did try Ď1 micron filteredí oil on an IDI Isuzu engine but it suffered injector coking and unfortunately my experiment was flawed, I used a second hand filter sock from an unknown manufacturer so my 1 micron could have 7! However, it is my belief that the coking was due to non-oil contamination and not burnt additives.
Itís worth noting here that filter efficiency varies. I canít remember the percentages now but a cartridge filter generally gives better performance than a sock filter. It depends on the manufacturer and filters are made to varying specifications. Some 1-micron sock filters of Chinese origin have been found to only give 12-micron efficiency. As I remember, an Ďabsoluteí cartridge filter should be 98% efficient.
Clearly any filtration result comparisons would need to be from the same grade filters.
Any type of fuel that is not completely combusted will leave a residue, so it stands to reason that an engine that has several start-ups, or is running too cool, will produce more carbon or ash than one that runs for long periods at full operating temperature.
Similarly, an engine with worn parts and/or incorrect timing will not combust fuel as efficiently as a new or reconditioned engine.
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: Bottleveg on February 05, 2011, 09:39:32 PM
DD,
I copied this from your post on the other thread-
ďAs for having a refinery in the back yard that is not an option.Ē
Personally I think it is an option, maybe not one of those huge towers with flashing lights on the top, but Iím sure something can be made that is both safe and cost effective. Iím borrowing my partners pressure cooker at the moment.  :laugh:
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: DRDEATH on February 05, 2011, 10:00:43 PM
You mean I can't have a blinking light for low flying airplanes. DARN. Thanks for moving your post. I was going to do it but I thought I would let you. Im trying to keep a clean nose. Now I am going to have to put a blinking light up for sale on flea bay. LOL
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: Bottleveg on February 05, 2011, 10:40:58 PM
No, you wonít need the light. Youíll have one of those long pipes with the vapour flame at the top.
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: millman56 on February 06, 2011, 07:23:04 PM
 This informative piece by Mr Goran Jonsson may help shed some light on our engine wear problems.                                             Member: Pacific Petroleum Ltd Post Date: 6/15/2002   
Wear in a cylinder liner is mainly due to friction, abrasion and corrosion, although under severe conditions adhesion may also occur. Each of them may have a number of causes.
Frictional wear takes place between the sliding surfaces of cylinder liner and piston rings. It will depend upon the materials involved, surface conditions, efficiency of cylinder lubrication, piston speed, engine load with corresponding pressure and temperatures, maintenance of piston rings, combustion efficiency and contamination of air or fuel.

Corrosion occurs mainly in engines burning heavy fuels, particularly with high sulfur content. Acids formed during combustion cause it and these must be neutralized by the use of alkaline cylinder oil. Sulfuric acid corrosion may be caused in the lower part of the liner if the jacket cooling water temperature is to low. This may allow vapor present after combustion to condense. The moisture formed will absorb any sulfur present to form sulfuric acid. Maintaining jacket temperature above the corresponding dewpoint can prevent this.

Water vapor will be present from the combustion of hydrogen together with any water present in the fuel. It may be increased if water passes from the charger air cooler.

Abrasion may take place from the products of mechanical wear, corrosion and combustion - all of which form hard particles. Ash may be present in some heavy fuels, as well as fines (aluminum compounds added as a catalyst during the refining process and not removed from the residual fuel) which may act as abrasives.

Adhesion or scuffing is a form of local welding between particles from the piston ring and the liner-rubbing surface, resulting in very rapid wear. It may occur it the lubricating oil film between ring and the liner is removed due to excessive temperature, insufficient supply or incorrect distribution of oil, piston blowpast, etc. Engines operating on some low sulfur grade of fuel may be prone to scuffing damage.

The rate of wear varies over the life of the liner. It is high during the initial running-in period after which it should reduce to an almost constant rate for most of the useful life of the liner. Finally the rate will progressively increase as wear become excessive.

Normal wear rate differs but an approximate figure of 0,1 mm per 1000 hours is accepted. For large engines wear is increased if the engine is overloaded. Maximum wear before renewal is usually limited to 0,6 - 0,8% of original bore diameter or less when manufacturer advice.

How to prevent metal-wear of liner?

By using Pacific Petroleum PP-C Cylinder oil additive blended into the cylinder lube oil with a dose around 3% by volume the cylinder oil wear protection characteristics will be improved. The additive has also a strong neutralization effect of sulfuric acid and will contribute to prolong the life of the liner and piston ring.

How much longer will the liners last when using PP-C Cylinder oil additive?

In an ASTM D2509, D2782 Timken Extreme Pressure tests the result of the additive show clearly, and how it increases the protection rate of normal cylinder lube oil.

Plain cylinder oils without additive have the wear protection factor 5.

The same cylinder oil with the dose 3% has the wear protection factor 250. Which means that the same oil with additive will reduce the normal metal-wear rate with (250: 5) 50 times above normal.

Detergent and clean piston ring seats.

The additive contain a detergent that will keep the piston ring seats clean and prevent blocking, and prevent build-ups of carbon.

By consuming 10 liters PP-C Cylinder oil additive per day in a full size vessel you avoid most of the cleanliness, corrosion and metal-wear problem in the liner and piston ring seats.

PACIFIC PETROLEUM LTD.
Goran Jonsson.
additive@panafonet.gr

 
  Reply | Email  Edit/Delete   

  Member: Pacific Petroleum Ltd Post Date: 6/15/2002   
Just for your information!


It was found in a research program performed by the National Technical University of Athens Greece, an increase of the mechanical efficiency in Marine diesel engines up to 4,2% when PP 2000 Engine protector was in use. The improvements was soley due to less internal friction in the engine. At the bottom line the same level of improvements will result in a net fuel saving in the same order. The cost from using PP2000 Engine Protector represent about 1% of the fuel saving. Clear net profit about 3%!!!! The main profit will however come from reduced wear and tear of liners, piston rings bearings etc.

For more information, contact:


Pacific Petroleum LTD.
Mesogeion Ave. 433
Agia Paraskevi Attica Gr 15343
Greece
Phone: -30 106009241
Fax: -30 106396545
email additive@panafonet.gr


------------------
Goran Jonsson

[This message has been edited by Pacific Petroleum Ltd (edited 6/15/2002).]
 
  Reply | Email  Edit/Delete   

  Member: meh_force12 Post Date: 3/20/2004   

 
  Reply | Email  Edit/Delete   

Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: cujet on February 10, 2011, 05:09:13 PM
I'm not sure how informative this is. However, I used diluted WMO in the diesel Rabbit (1600cc) IDI engine with great results. However, I gravity filtered it with a Motorguard 0.5 micron filter. And, I did this from the top of my barrel, which has been settling for quite some time. The oil on top was black, but you could notice a bit of amber in the color and not visibly contaminated like freshly drained motor oil. A drop on the paper towel revealed an obvious amber color.

Upon disassembly of the engine, I was surprised to find that the engine was not loaded up with carbon. In fact, it looked quite normal. That engine will go on to live another life!
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: millman56 on February 11, 2011, 06:51:14 AM
Cujet,        for me very informative, it has reinforced a theory of mine regarding acid erosion, see my post on the previous WMO thread.
The rest is pretty well what most of us already knew/ assumed, one thing for sure is that when shipping lines spend millions on engines they are going to get their facts right,  how I can apply their solutions to my engines is not clear, I am not about to drill into 14 water cooled cylinders  ( 3 engines 4 and 6 cyl )  to pump oil into the bores and a 100 Hp open crank engine is out of the question. 
Its good to hear of your success with the VW 1600, what is problematic about the WMO question is the variety of oils/dilution rates/engine types/usage/personal take on things etc etc,  your use is way different from mine which is runnig one engine in particular at near its  max output   (based on the fact that 3 more Kilowatts load sends it into visibly black smoke exhaust )  for 10 hours a day 6 days a week.  Mark.

 
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: DRDEATH on February 11, 2011, 08:16:28 AM
Cujet you said gravity filtered. This seems simple but I have tried to pump filter without much success. So I would like a little more information. Is you oil HOT. Mine was just warm from sunlight during August in western KS. I am really serious about getting a centrifuge but I would rather hold off. I am trying to work a deal with one of my BRITT friends to make one for me when he makes one for himself. Thanks, Mike DD
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: Bottleveg on February 11, 2011, 08:50:35 PM
Cujet you said gravity filtered. This seems simple but I have tried to pump filter without much success. So I would like a little more information. Is you oil HOT. Mine was just warm from sunlight during August in western KS. I am really serious about getting a centrifuge but I would rather hold off. I am trying to work a deal with one of my BRITT friends to make one for me when he makes one for himself. Thanks, Mike DD

Mike, one of the keys to long lasting filters is to let the oil settle for as long as possible and then filter the oil from the top. Heating the oil will lower its viscosity so increase its flow through the filter.
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: cylinderheadnut on May 21, 2011, 04:57:15 PM
We have not touched on the very important question of is the wmo exhaust toxic, and if so we need it analized and compared to Diesel fuel.

If the result is bad then we cannot proceed any further.
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: julianf on May 21, 2011, 06:16:28 PM
We have not touched on the very important question of is the wmo exhaust toxic, and if so we need it analized and compared to Diesel fuel.

If the result is bad then we cannot proceed any further.

This has been a concern of mine (i own a 6/1 and am considering fuel options)

...however, someone pointed out to me that the Kroll burners (etc) are legal, and, not only that, German (and i think germany has tighter emissions controls than most places)

This is only speculation though, & I too would like to see clear reports (and indeed, was asking if anyone could point me toward anything on the Navitron forum not so long ago, with no sucess ):
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: cujet on August 13, 2011, 06:05:59 PM
Sorry it's been so long.

My filter setup is simple. I purchased Motorguard filters online, from an automotive paint supply house. I hooked 2 vinyl 3/8 inch hoses to the filter. I attached a weight to the suction side. So the tubing would remain submerged.

I then siphon from the top of the barrel. It takes all day and night to fill a 2 gallon jug. The oil is likely to be about 70 degrees or more, not heated, but it ain't cold here in South Florida.

No pump required. The filtered oil is obviously cleaner. However...

Interesting enough, I let the filtered oil sit in one of mama's clear flower vases for the last year. Sure enough, it's clear like new oil at the top and there is darker sediment sitting at the bottom.

So, even though the motorguard filters are 0.5 micron, the oil can obviously be filtered even better.

Chris
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: bschwartz on August 13, 2011, 09:58:57 PM
0.5 micron nominal, or absolute?

My bet is nominal which means that it is only trapping particles as small as .5 microns, but the majority of those (and larger) get through.

http://www.lenntech.com/library/fine/absolute/absolute-nominal-filters.htm
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: cujet on September 24, 2011, 12:31:14 AM
Well, it's a Motorguard filter. So, it's rating is 0.5 micron. It does not specify on the sticker "nominal" or "absolute". Sorry but I simply don't know.

This much I do know, the very same element is used as bypass filters on automotive engines. They are quite effective in keeping the motor oil clean.
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: bschwartz on September 24, 2011, 01:48:19 AM
My guess is that if it doesn't say absolute, it isn't.  Manufacturers are very proud (read as expensive) of being able to label a filter as absolute.   In a bypass configuration, the oil goes through the filter many times and each time, the filter catches some of the particles.  It may work well in that application, but in a single pass configuration, I wouldn't trust one to clean my fuel well enough. 
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: EcoTort on October 08, 2011, 04:54:23 PM
Hi,
I am now the proud owner of a 50' narrowboat, gutted by fire, bought as an insurance write-off. She is fitted with a lister SR3 & marine g/box.
As an eco- activist I am very interested in burning waste oil,
There is a company in Brixham, Devon who have been working on a technology for quite some time, using Hydrogen/Oxygen mix generated by electrolysis of water fed into the inlet manifold. They market a product which is claimed to eliminate almost ALL emissions, and increase fuel/power efficiency by between 20 to 100%.
I wonder if it would burn the ash and other contaminants gerneratyed by burning WMO ?
Below is a link to their site, I don't have financeial resources to investigate this myself, but perhaps you do?

http://www.hydrogenhybrids.uk.com/
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: dieselgman on October 08, 2011, 05:07:42 PM
Skeptic #1 here, but their claims are not too outlandish I suppose. However, extending this to WMO and zero emissions? Not happening!

Any takers?   :laugh:

dieselgman
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: cgwymp on October 08, 2011, 06:27:14 PM
I just glanced at the site but it looks like they disassociate water into oxygen & hydrogen via electrolysis, then pipe that into the engine to be burned back into water. It's impossible to get more energy out of the combustion than it took to crack the water into H & O, so best case is break even. But engines aren't 100% efficient so it won't be best case by a long shot. And I really don't see how it could do much to improve the emissions. Sorry!
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: billswan on October 09, 2011, 12:31:00 PM
Ecotort

That WAS what I originally had in mind to do with my roid engines. HHO from electrolysis that is, but that nasty ash killed the first 10/1 before I could get the co generation system totally set up to my liking. I have also been dragging my feet watching utube videos put up by the guys experimenting with building the ultra efficient HHO cells. They seem to be much more creative than me and much better funded as these cells can cost quite a wad of cash.

But back to your question of will HHO burn the ash. Here is my opinion only .......... won't happen............ That ash is so abrasive it will kill a roid if the waste oil is mixed at about high % to diesel the only way to keep the cylinder damage down is to keep the WMO% to maybe 10% + or -. Remember this is MY opinion the only proof I have is 2 wore out roids run at high % wmo without HHO...................

Billswan
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: dieselgman on October 09, 2011, 04:58:36 PM
I have seen some positive posts about people running a 25% mixture of WMO and not reporting any problems despite some fairly high hours logged. It seems to me I read that the Air Force was doing this same thing successfully at about 10% to 15%. So I wonder if the key issue is really the build up and concentration in the combustion chamber & piston of waste products that can be either cleared or avoided by a different fuel mixture. If that is the case (as I suspect it is), then the HHO mixture could also change that dynamic for the better. Not that it would be doing anything with the carbon and ash rather than preventing its build-up inside the engine in the first place.

Just some musings here, I burn all my waste oils in the shop heaters.

dieselgman
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: bloomers359 on October 09, 2011, 08:35:14 PM
Link from Lister yahoo Groups.


http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Rules&Guides/Current/31_HeavyFuelOil/Pub31_HeavyFuelOil

Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: billswan on October 10, 2011, 12:41:11 PM
Thanks for the link bloomers359 hope to read it some day. Lots of info there just don't have the time now.

What I did scan through was very interesting.

Billswan
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: dieselgman on October 10, 2011, 02:44:51 PM
Very interesting, Thanks for that link!  Interpreting that chemistry as it might apply to WMO is a stretch, but I suppose we have some chemical engineers here as well?

dieselgman
Title: Re: WMO 2nd GENERATION
Post by: cylinderheadnut on December 20, 2011, 07:09:59 PM
We have not touched on the very important question of is the wmo exhaust toxic, and if so we need it analized and compared to Diesel fuel.

If the result is bad then we cannot proceed any further.


As regards heavy metal contamination, iv'e changed my mind, is there any ? the wear of bearing metal into the oil over the whole life of the engine and it's oil changes probably is insignificant.

Additives in the oil may be nasty though, but then  Diesel is not made from flowers !