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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
61
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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.

62
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

63
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

64
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

65
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

66
Lister Market Place (things for Sale) / Re: Help in Id on this Lister
« on: January 27, 2011, 07:25:08 PM »
I've got to power down the generator now, Ill speak to you another time. cheers

67
Lister Market Place (things for Sale) / Re: Help in Id on this Lister
« on: January 27, 2011, 06:55:35 PM »
Which part of the world are located?
As this will make a very big difference to what's available.
When I know where you are I can make some suggestions.

Spencer

68
Lister Market Place (things for Sale) / Re: Help in Id on this Lister
« on: January 27, 2011, 06:40:46 PM »
Welcome :)
Not my best subject but I would say it is air cooled and looks more like 6 hp.
At a guess it's an LD if that's even the correct lettering.
What do you want to do with it ?

Spencer

69
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

70
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

71
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

72
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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

73
Lister Based Generators / Re: Lister generator project
« on: January 26, 2011, 08:56:36 PM »
Going to reuse the massive cast base that came with the engine as it's weight might help to keep it from jumping about ;D
The base is really long as it originally had an alternator and then behind that a massive dynamo.
Then I need to turn out the engines drive coupling to fit the alternators shaft ,at the moment the alternator is still part of a PTO generating set.
Getting the alternator lined up to the engine is not going to be much fun.

74
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« on: January 26, 2011, 07:12:21 PM »
Eat humble pie      EX PERT   ;D

75
Waste Motor Oil / Re: Danger engine damage
« 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


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14