Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - spencer1885

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14
46
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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.

47
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

48
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

49
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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.

50
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

51
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

52
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

53
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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



54
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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.

55
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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.

56
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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???

57
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

58
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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
 ;)

59
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

60
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 14